Yes, yes it is. It's completely un-American.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/10/11/rfid_tracking_texas_schools_force_kids_to_wear_electronic_chips.html
QuoteTexas Schools Are Forcing Kids To Wear RFID Chips. Is That a Privacy Invasion?
By Will Oremus
|
Posted Thursday, Oct. 11, 2012, at 3:50 PM ET
Two San Antonio schools have joined others in Houston and Austin in requiring students to wear cards with radio-frequency identification (RFID) chips embedded in them, allowing administrators to track their whereabouts on campus.
The scheme, reported last month by Wired's Threat Level blog, is drawing fresh attention now that the school year has begun. Most students and parents have acquiesced to the tracking, accepting the schools' explanation that it will make students safer and help administrators more accurately report attendance. Since many public schools are funded in part based on their average daily attendance, the RFID trackers can bring in thousands or even millions more for a large district by allowing them to count students who are on campus but not at the morning roll call. The tags can only be read from on campus, so students aren't being tracked outside the building.
Still, a couple of students and parents have raised a fuss. Among them is a father named Steven Hernandez, who objects to the devices on Biblical grounds. He compares the RFID cards to the "mark of the beast" in the Book of Revelation, and his daughter has reportedly refused to wear them, despite the school's offer to remove the chip from her card. Some outlets report that she has been banned from voting for Homecoming king and queen as punishment, but that's not quite it. Pascual Gonzalez, communications director for the Northside Independent School District, told me that all students are required to present their ID in order to do various things on campus, including vote in student elections. The student in question declined to present hers.
Still, the homecoming anecdote as served its purpose for opponents of the chips, who have so far been dismayed by the general lack of outrage over the schemes. Right-wing sites like Glenn Beck's The Blaze and World Net Daily are now running with the story, joining privacy groups on the left such as the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. (Funny, I haven't seen the same outrage from the right about voter-ID laws for national elections.) The ACLU and EFF, among other liberal groups, have endorsed a position paper by a campaign called Chip Free Schools, which argues that RFID tracking of students carries "profound societal implications." Among the concerns raised in its position paper:
• Dehumanizing uses. While there is an expectation of supervision and guidance in schools, monitoring the detailed behaviors of individuals can be demeaning. For example, RFID reading devices in school restrooms could monitor how long a student or teacher spends in a bathroom stall.
• Violation of free speech and association. ... For example, students might avoid seeking counsel when they know their RFID tags will document their presence at locations like counselor and School Resource Officer (SRO) offices.
• Conditioning to tracking and monitoring. Young people learn about the world and prepare for their futures while in school. Tracking and monitoring them in their development may condition them to accept constant monitoring and tracking of their whereabouts and behaviors. This could usher in a society that accepts this kind of treatment as routine rather than an encroachment of privacy and civil liberties.
The first two issues, and several of the others that privacy advocates have broached, amount to concerns that schools will abuse the information provided by the RFID tags. That's possible, of course, but it's going to be difficult to convince school administrators of that, since it amounts to saying that they and their personnel aren't trustworthy.
The third concern, though, is interesting. The argument, in essence, is that the more privacy we're forced to give up, the more we're willing to give up. Is it true? Well, check out this snippet from a (generally quite positive) San Antonio Express-News story about the RFID program:
Northside's decision generated alarm among national conservative media outlets, criticism from the American Civil Liberties Union and a protest outside the middle school on the first day of classes in August.
But after a few weeks of carrying and using the ID cards, students at Jones shrug when asked about the uproar. Some have decorated their badges with stickers or dangle them from Hello Kitty lanyards.
Gonzalez, the school district's communications director, maintains that students have never had an expectation of privacy on campus. "By virtue of the fact that you are a student at a school, there is no privacy. ... It is our responsibility to know where every single one of those 3,000 students are while they are in our care during the school day."
He has a point. A lot of things that would be rights violations if imposed on the population at large are perfectly acceptable in school settings. That said, it's understandable that privacy groups are wary of policies that acculturate students to electronic surveillance. Considering that just two out of 4,200 students at the two schools involved in the San Antonio district's RFID pilot program have complained, though, that ship may have sailed long ago.
Nope. Next question.
yeah. also good on this article for leading with the "mark of the Beast" angle
I have no problem with schools requiring students to carry ID cards on campus and I have no problem with RFID chips. I don't see a difference between a truancy officer, hall monitor or teacher asking a student to identify him or herself and a machine commissioned by the principle doing so.
Don't like it one bit.
Oh, we would have had a lot of fun with this shit when I was in school. For example: masses of ID cards attached to a dog's collar and the dog set loose in the school building; ID cards flushed down the toilet, multiple ID cards pinned to the backs of unsuspecting nerds, ID cards sneaked into cafeteria ovens, etc. The possibilities are endless.
Of course, if these things are going to be used to track attendence instead of your attendence being tracked by a teacher eyeballing you to see if you're in class, there's also the more mundane abuse of getting a ringer to attend school for you.
Who is going to attend school for the cash a typical teenager can afford to pay him? :hmm:
Ah, right, Siege. :D
Is this worse than being required to carry ID at all time, unlike civilised parts of the world?
I think government tracking your ID is much more invasive than requiring you to have it, yes.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 15, 2012, 06:46:38 AM
I think government tracking your ID is much more invasive than requiring you to have it, yes.
Do you think you have a right to privacy while in school?
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 06:47:42 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 15, 2012, 06:46:38 AM
I think government tracking your ID is much more invasive than requiring you to have it, yes.
Do you think you have a right to privacy while in school?
Considering how the US courts don't think so, don't know why people suddenly think they do.
EVERYBODY TO THE AUDITORIUM WHILE THE DRUG DOGS SWEEP THE LOCKERS
Lockers are the school's property, your person is not.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 15, 2012, 06:52:12 AM
Lockers are the school's property, your person is not.
The school ID is also the school's property, and the wearing of it is a condition of being on school property. So there you go.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2012, 06:49:20 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 06:47:42 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 15, 2012, 06:46:38 AM
I think government tracking your ID is much more invasive than requiring you to have it, yes.
Do you think you have a right to privacy while in school?
Considering how the US courts don't think so, don't know why people suddenly think they do.
EVERYBODY TO THE AUDITORIUM WHILE THE DRUG DOGS SWEEP THE LOCKERS
Yeah, that's what I thought.
I've said before regarding CCTV and Loitering Police Surveillance Drones that anything a person can do e.g. standing on a street corner with a camera or flying in a helicopter with a camera should be treated in the same way as doing the same thing with a robot or drone or camera on a light-post. I think the same applies to schools. If the same outcome can be achieved by putting school employees in every corridor with note pads then it isn't an invasion of privacy.
People seem to freak out about this however. I don't think this is due to fears of invasion of privacy, it is a fear of systematization of data as well as the anonimization of it's collection. People are obviously willing to accept much more invasion of privacy from a person who's motives and attitudes can be estimated and who is incapable of effectively using any such relevant information effectively.
People want a low level of incompetence and corruption in their government because sometimes they need to go around the law just a little bit because, y'know, I am mature enough to be able to decide when, in some small way, the law needs to be broken for the greater good. I can actually sympathize with that. That's why I think greater surveillance should be directly associated with more liberal and flexible laws.
An example of this is my suggested system for traffic monitoring. Connecting your drivers license (with chip) to a gps in every car which sends speed-location-licence information to the highway patrol means you will get fined every time you speed, it also means that you can now set flexible speed limits based on conditions with the present speed limit info sent from the highway patrol to your car and also for example permit short 15 second bursts for exceeding the speed limit for overtaking and emergencies.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2012, 06:54:04 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 15, 2012, 06:52:12 AM
Lockers are the school's property, your person is not.
The school ID is also the school's property, and the wearing of it is a condition of being on school property. So there you go.
Which doesn't really make sense as is it is mandatory to go to school.
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 07:12:16 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2012, 06:54:04 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 15, 2012, 06:52:12 AM
Lockers are the school's property, your person is not.
The school ID is also the school's property, and the wearing of it is a condition of being on school property. So there you go.
Which doesn't really make sense as is it is mandatory to go to school.
There lots of other conditions for being on school property.
As someone who's worked with RFID technology and how it tiers into access control with both physical and logical access and asset tracking, I can assure everyone that their concerns are ill warranted. :ph34r:
The high school bitching is hilarious, considering how the collegiate and university level has moved forward with it for the last several years, from access to meal plans to time and attendance records, and how it has proliferated in the government and private sector employment arena.
Mark of the beast, lulz.
Is there a Constitutional righ tto privacy?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2012, 07:21:27 AM
As someone who's worked with RFID technology and how it tiers into access control with both physical and logical access and asset tracking, I can assure everyone that their concerns are ill warranted. :ph34r:
The high school bitching is hilarious, considering how the collegiate and university level has moved forward with it for the last several years, from access to meal plans to time and attendance records, and how it has proliferated in the government and private sector employment arena.
Mark of the beast, lulz.
No what it is is a waste of money.
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 07:14:40 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 07:12:16 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2012, 06:54:04 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 15, 2012, 06:52:12 AM
Lockers are the school's property, your person is not.
The school ID is also the school's property, and the wearing of it is a condition of being on school property. So there you go.
Which doesn't really make sense as is it is mandatory to go to school.
There lots of other conditions for being on school property.
Most of which are focused on making sure students aren't disruptive. This type of ID can't appeal to that reasoning.
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 08:38:24 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 07:14:40 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 07:12:16 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2012, 06:54:04 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 15, 2012, 06:52:12 AM
Lockers are the school's property, your person is not.
The school ID is also the school's property, and the wearing of it is a condition of being on school property. So there you go.
Which doesn't really make sense as is it is mandatory to go to school.
There lots of other conditions for being on school property.
Most of which are focused on making sure students aren't disruptive. This type of ID can't appeal to that reasoning.
If being able to prove which students were at the location of a disruption can't be used to reduce disruption then I don't know what can.
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 08:41:19 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 08:38:24 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 07:14:40 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 07:12:16 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2012, 06:54:04 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 15, 2012, 06:52:12 AM
Lockers are the school's property, your person is not.
The school ID is also the school's property, and the wearing of it is a condition of being on school property. So there you go.
Which doesn't really make sense as is it is mandatory to go to school.
There lots of other conditions for being on school property.
Most of which are focused on making sure students aren't disruptive. This type of ID can't appeal to that reasoning.
If being able to prove which students were at the location of a disruption can't be used to reduce disruption then I don't know what can.
I can't speak for Texas - but where I went to school, this would be a big waste of funds. They couldn't even manage our regular ID cards properly.
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 08:38:24 AM
Most of which are focused on making sure students aren't disruptive. This type of ID can't appeal to that reasoning.
Nonsense. RFID can determine who made it out of the building during a fire alarm or mass-shooting evacuation, for example.
I bet you'd have no problem with it if they needed it to vote, though.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2012, 08:44:46 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 08:38:24 AM
Most of which are focused on making sure students aren't disruptive. This type of ID can't appeal to that reasoning.
Nonsense. RFID can determine who made it out of the building during a fire alarm or mass-shooting evacuation, for example.
I bet you'd have no problem with it if they needed it to vote, though.
The fact that this makes a good slippery slope argument against the voting ID requirement doesn't explain why you'd oppose that yet support this. :unsure:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2012, 08:44:46 AM
Nonsense. RFID can determine who made it out of the building during a fire alarm or mass-shooting evacuation, for example.
I think you rate the competence of school staff too highly.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 15, 2012, 08:48:52 AM
The fact that this makes a good slippery slope argument against the voting ID requirement doesn't explain why you'd oppose that yet support this. :unsure:
Who says I don't support voter ID laws? I don't have that much of a problem with them: I just don't support them being rushed into law for the purposes of reengineering a specific election at the last minute to disenfranchise specific voter bases in a specific election.
Plenty of states have adopted them with the appropriate ramp up, education and administrative and cost support over a 2 year or 4 year timeline. No problem with that. Gives people plenty of time to do what they need to do, instead of a rush job designed specifically to getting the Kenyan Secularist Muslim Commie Nazi out of Der Weiss Haus.
RFID in schools, on the other hand, is no big deal. Especially when students don't have a legal right to privacy in most respects anyway.
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 08:50:31 AM
I think you rate the competence of school staff too highly.
I think you rate the importance of rights of snot-nosed kids too highly.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2012, 09:00:21 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 08:50:31 AM
I think you rate the competence of school staff too highly.
I think you rate the importance of rights of snot-nosed kids too highly.
I don't really care that much about rights. I think more important is schools not wasting money when they don't even have the budget for adequate teaching staff and so called extras like arts programs.
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 08:50:31 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2012, 08:44:46 AM
Nonsense. RFID can determine who made it out of the building during a fire alarm or mass-shooting evacuation, for example.
I think you rate the competence of school staff too highly.
In fire drills during my school career school staff managed a near 100% success rate at determining this with attendance sheets. It just took an hour, rather than 10 seconds.
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 09:06:31 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 08:50:31 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2012, 08:44:46 AM
Nonsense. RFID can determine who made it out of the building during a fire alarm or mass-shooting evacuation, for example.
I think you rate the competence of school staff too highly.
In fire drills during my school career school staff managed a near 100% success rate at determining this with attendance sheets. It just took an hour, rather than 10 seconds.
That's nice. Wasn't the case at my school. What with kids sneaking off campus at various points in the day, missing the initial period when they took attendance, not bothering to participate in the fire drill, etc.
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 09:07:41 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 09:06:31 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 08:50:31 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2012, 08:44:46 AM
Nonsense. RFID can determine who made it out of the building during a fire alarm or mass-shooting evacuation, for example.
I think you rate the competence of school staff too highly.
In fire drills during my school career school staff managed a near 100% success rate at determining this with attendance sheets. It just took an hour, rather than 10 seconds.
That's nice. Wasn't the case at my school. What with kids sneaking off campus at various points in the day, missing the initial period when they took attendance, not bothering to participate in the fire drill, etc.
RFID tags means they won't be doing that anymore :contract:
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 09:09:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 09:07:41 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 09:06:31 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 08:50:31 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2012, 08:44:46 AM
Nonsense. RFID can determine who made it out of the building during a fire alarm or mass-shooting evacuation, for example.
I think you rate the competence of school staff too highly.
In fire drills during my school career school staff managed a near 100% success rate at determining this with attendance sheets. It just took an hour, rather than 10 seconds.
That's nice. Wasn't the case at my school. What with kids sneaking off campus at various points in the day, missing the initial period when they took attendance, not bothering to participate in the fire drill, etc.
RFID tags means they won't be doing that anymore :contract:
Disagree. My school seemed incapable of using any of the technology they had. Hey, maybe schools in Texas are much more on top of things - but I know if it was at my school, there would have been inevitable tech breakdowns or easy ways that kids would find to get around this monitoring system.
The idea of tracking kids is really gross. While we're at it, we shouldn't have mandatory drug testing for extra curricular activities. Or Voting ID laws.
The mandatory German national ID card has an RFID chip.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 15, 2012, 08:04:17 AM
Is there a Constitutional righ tto privacy?
Probably more accurate to say that there are constitional rights to privacy.
FWIW I agree with Viking.
Quote from: Zanza on October 15, 2012, 11:28:03 AM
The mandatory German national ID card has an RFID chip.
Flair.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 15, 2012, 11:30:41 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on October 15, 2012, 08:04:17 AM
Is there a Constitutional righ tto privacy?
Probably more accurate to say that there are constitional rights to privacy.
FWIW I agree with Viking.
When you say it like that you make it sound like you think that's a bad thing :hmm:
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 12:14:47 PM
When you say it like that you make it sound like you think that's a bad thing :hmm:
It makes me nervous given that you are going straight to hell. ;)
I knew Minsky wasn't a real Jew.
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 09:06:31 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 08:50:31 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2012, 08:44:46 AM
Nonsense. RFID can determine who made it out of the building during a fire alarm or mass-shooting evacuation, for example.
I think you rate the competence of school staff too highly.
In fire drills during my school career school staff managed a near 100% success rate at determining this with attendance sheets. It just took an hour, rather than 10 seconds.
My freshman year, my high school managed to get students 100% evacuated in under the time set as the goal in fire drills. Of course, this was because we didn't actually have any fire drills that year, the principal just submitted made-up number on the reports showing that we were conducting them.
I can guarantee that we'd never get 100% evacuated if we had these IDs. We'd deliberately leave the IDs in the classrooms while we exited the building, maybe even hide them so that the teacher couldn't go get them and bring them outside with us. Of course, even leaving out those of us who would have deliberatedly screwed with the system, we had a few students who would have truly accidentally left their IDs behind when the fire alarm went off.
Quote from: dps on October 15, 2012, 04:21:42 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 09:06:31 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 08:50:31 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2012, 08:44:46 AM
Nonsense. RFID can determine who made it out of the building during a fire alarm or mass-shooting evacuation, for example.
I think you rate the competence of school staff too highly.
In fire drills during my school career school staff managed a near 100% success rate at determining this with attendance sheets. It just took an hour, rather than 10 seconds.
My freshman year, my high school managed to get students 100% evacuated in under the time set as the goal in fire drills. Of course, this was because we didn't actually have any fire drills that year, the principal just submitted made-up number on the reports showing that we were conducting them.
I can guarantee that we'd never get 100% evacuated if we had these IDs. We'd deliberately leave the IDs in the classrooms while we exited the building, maybe even hide them so that the teacher couldn't go get them and bring them outside with us. Of course, even leaving out those of us who would have deliberatedly screwed with the system, we had a few students who would have truly accidentally left their IDs behind when the fire alarm went off.
I've had jobs where I'd usually just leave my ID tag sitting on my desk - even when I worked for a nuclear company and that ID tag also contained a radiation monitor.
BUT... if you link the ID tag to things you need to use, then you'll carry it automatically. If you need your ID tag to get lunch, or enter the library or the locker room, then compliance becomes easy.
By the way - I also agree with Viking's position in this thread. :unsure:
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2012, 04:26:06 PM
BUT... if you link the ID tag to things you need to use, then you'll carry it automatically. If you need your ID tag to get lunch, or enter the library or the locker room, then compliance becomes easy.
I don't think so. People will inevitably take pity upon you if you can't locate your ID. We were supposed to show ours to get into library, but if you didn't have it - all you stood to get one a small talking to.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 15, 2012, 03:41:12 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 12:14:47 PM
When you say it like that you make it sound like you think that's a bad thing :hmm:
It makes me nervous given that you are going straight to hell. ;)
Jews believe in hell?
I'm sure he's been to Jersey.
Quote from: dps on October 15, 2012, 04:21:42 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 09:06:31 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 08:50:31 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2012, 08:44:46 AM
Nonsense. RFID can determine who made it out of the building during a fire alarm or mass-shooting evacuation, for example.
I think you rate the competence of school staff too highly.
In fire drills during my school career school staff managed a near 100% success rate at determining this with attendance sheets. It just took an hour, rather than 10 seconds.
My freshman year, my high school managed to get students 100% evacuated in under the time set as the goal in fire drills. Of course, this was because we didn't actually have any fire drills that year, the principal just submitted made-up number on the reports showing that we were conducting them.
The hour was spent synchronizing lists with all us kids freezing our asses off jacketless in -20 deg C, not the actual evacuation. If some kid had been left inside and the building was actually on fire and needed saving he'd be dead.
Interestingly enough, I spent most of my class period yesterday explaining that we discrete privacy rights, but no constitutional privacy bubble.
Quote from: Scipio on October 16, 2012, 08:15:46 AM
Interestingly enough, I spent most of my class period yesterday explaining that we discrete privacy rights, but no constitutional privacy bubble.
I guess most of that was used to explain the use of "discrete" as a verb.
Was a typo. He meant "excrete".
I figured he misspelled "discredit".
Quote from: Scipio on October 16, 2012, 08:15:46 AM
Interestingly enough, I spent most of my class period yesterday explaining that we discrete privacy rights, but no constitutional privacy bubble.
and how do you say that in english?
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 04:49:30 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 15, 2012, 03:41:12 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 12:14:47 PM
When you say it like that you make it sound like you think that's a bad thing :hmm:
It makes me nervous given that you are going straight to hell. ;)
Jews believe in hell?
No but why risk it?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 16, 2012, 01:51:02 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 04:49:30 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 15, 2012, 03:41:12 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 12:14:47 PM
When you say it like that you make it sound like you think that's a bad thing :hmm:
It makes me nervous given that you are going straight to hell. ;)
Jews believe in hell?
No but why risk it?
Exactly what risk are you taking here then?
Dammit JR, don't goad him into this shit.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2012, 02:07:20 PM
Dammit JR, don't goad him into this shit.
Don't take sanity advice from Raz, he follows the religion of cannibalism and vicarious redemptive human sacrifice.
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 07:06:22 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2012, 06:49:20 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 06:47:42 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 15, 2012, 06:46:38 AM
I think government tracking your ID is much more invasive than requiring you to have it, yes.
Do you think you have a right to privacy while in school?
Considering how the US courts don't think so, don't know why people suddenly think they do.
EVERYBODY TO THE AUDITORIUM WHILE THE DRUG DOGS SWEEP THE LOCKERS
Yeah, that's what I thought.
I've said before regarding CCTV and Loitering Police Surveillance Drones that anything a person can do e.g. standing on a street corner with a camera or flying in a helicopter with a camera should be treated in the same way as doing the same thing with a robot or drone or camera on a light-post. I think the same applies to schools. If the same outcome can be achieved by putting school employees in every corridor with note pads then it isn't an invasion of privacy.
People seem to freak out about this however. I don't think this is due to fears of invasion of privacy, it is a fear of systematization of data as well as the anonimization of it's collection. People are obviously willing to accept much more invasion of privacy from a person who's motives and attitudes can be estimated and who is incapable of effectively using any such relevant information effectively.
People want a low level of incompetence and corruption in their government because sometimes they need to go around the law just a little bit because, y'know, I am mature enough to be able to decide when, in some small way, the law needs to be broken for the greater good. I can actually sympathize with that. That's why I think greater surveillance should be directly associated with more liberal and flexible laws.
An example of this is my suggested system for traffic monitoring. Connecting your drivers license (with chip) to a gps in every car which sends speed-location-licence information to the highway patrol means you will get fined every time you speed, it also means that you can now set flexible speed limits based on conditions with the present speed limit info sent from the highway patrol to your car and also for example permit short 15 second bursts for exceeding the speed limit for overtaking and emergencies.
I also think this has something to do with a broader issue of the American attitude to law breaking compared to the European one. I have this pet theory that modern American criminal law developed in circumstances entirely different than modern European criminal law; in that, with America of the 18th and the 19th centuries being, largely, a lawless country, laws had to be few and far between and they were rarely enforced but as a result they had to be quite severe in punishment once the culprit was actually caught (and in many cases, they would actually treat the perpetrator as an outlaw). As the European laws were both enforced better (for obvious reasons) and more numerous, they had to be more lax, on average, when it came to punishment (you can't just hang or imprison the entire populace).
As America became more civilized and the level of law enforcement improved and the number of laws increased, this attitude did not change, however, keeping very high penalties for crimes that in Europe would get you a slap on the wrist (stuff like 15 years in prison for smuggling shrimps from Mexico come to mind). The flipside is that Americans are much more leery about better law enforcement (e.g. through better surveillance) - because with their attitudes towards crime, this would turn their lives into a nightmare.
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2012, 02:45:20 PM
I also think this has something to do with a broader issue of the American attitude to law breaking compared to the European one. I have this pet theory that modern American criminal law developed in circumstances entirely different than modern European criminal law; in that, with America of the 18th and the 19th centuries being, largely, a lawless country, laws had to be few and far between and they were rarely enforced but as a result they had to be quite severe in punishment once the culprit was actually caught (and in many cases, they would actually treat the perpetrator as an outlaw). As the European laws were both enforced better (for obvious reasons) and more numerous, they had to be more lax, on average, when it came to punishment (you can't just hang or imprison the entire populace).
As America became more civilized and the level of law enforcement improved and the number of laws increased, this attitude did not change, however, keeping very high penalties for crimes that in Europe would get you a slap on the wrist (stuff like 15 years in prison for smuggling shrimps from Mexico come to mind). The flipside is that Americans are much more leery about better law enforcement (e.g. through better surveillance) - because with their attitudes towards crime, this would turn their lives into a nightmare.
To the best of my knowledge europeans have precisely the same attitudes to surveilance. I think american attitudes to justice are more likely to be a result of a general divergence in views on individual responsibility. It's after WWI that these things really change and come to a head in the 1960's. Americans traditionally had law, it just was locally sourced and accountable rather than being accountable to a higher level of government (remember they elect sheriffs and judges).
If anything sentencing is more a case of Europe adopting the early 19th century american attitude to crime and punishment (what was Tocqueville doing there in the first place you might ask?) of sentence and redemption (the word Penitentiary is american and about penitence rather than punishment). Over the same period as american society became less homogenous they abandoned reform.
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2012, 02:45:20 PM
I also think this has something to do with a broader issue of the American attitude to law breaking compared to the European one. I have this pet theory that modern American criminal law developed in circumstances entirely different than modern European criminal law; in that, with America of the 18th and the 19th centuries being, largely, a lawless country, laws had to be few and far between and they were rarely enforced but as a result they had to be quite severe in punishment once the culprit was actually caught (and in many cases, they would actually treat the perpetrator as an outlaw). As the European laws were both enforced better (for obvious reasons) and more numerous, they had to be more lax, on average, when it came to punishment (you can't just hang or imprison the entire populace).
As America became more civilized and the level of law enforcement improved and the number of laws increased, this attitude did not change, however, keeping very high penalties for crimes that in Europe would get you a slap on the wrist (stuff like 15 years in prison for smuggling shrimps from Mexico come to mind). The flipside is that Americans are much more leery about better law enforcement (e.g. through better surveillance) - because with their attitudes towards crime, this would turn their lives into a nightmare.
Marti, American criminal law was just imported British criminal law. It's obviously been modified and altered in the last 200 years, but it has that same basic origin.
Quote from: Viking on October 16, 2012, 01:53:26 PM
Exactly what risk are you taking here then?
Of being in the general vicinity when the awesome power of celestrial wrath is visited upon you as divine vengeance for your notorious blasphemy.
Quote from: Barrister on October 16, 2012, 03:41:20 PM
Marti, American criminal law was just imported British criminal law. It's obviously been modified and altered in the last 200 years, but it has that same basic origin.
Still Marti's theory of how they evolved since then seems somewhat legit.
Quote from: Barrister on October 16, 2012, 03:41:20 PM
Marti, American criminal law was just imported British criminal law. It's obviously been modified and altered in the last 200 years, but it has that same basic origin.
Yeah - plus Martinus, being a euro, has a tendency to think of 18th and 19th century America through the prism of wild west stories. Early America was not "lawless" nor were laws rarely enforced, except perhaps on the far extremes of the frontier.
Actually focusing specifically on the criminal law, the situation is almost exactly the opposite from what Martinus thinks in the colonial and early independence period. Criminal law was usually codified and there were a lot of it - because the colonies and early state regimes had a penchant for moral legislation and regulation of vice. Compared to England, the American colonies and states were quicker to adopt public enforcement of criminal law, although effectiveness varied across space and time. Punishments tended to be measurably less severe than in the English system, and as Viking correctly notes, reform movements had strong support in early America.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 16, 2012, 04:12:23 PM
Actually focusing specifically on the criminal law, the situation is almost exactly the opposite from what Martinus thinks in the colonial and early independence period. Criminal law was usually codified and there were a lot of it - because the colonies and early state regimes had a penchant for moral legislation and regulation of vice. Compared to England, the American colonies and states were quicker to adopt public enforcement of criminal law, although effectiveness varied across space and time. Punishments tended to be measurably less severe than in the English system, and as Viking correctly notes, reform movements had strong support in early America.
Yeah, for example poaching was still a capital offense until 1850 or so in Britian.
It still kind of bothers me that Marty is lawyer and doesn't actually know much about law. It'd be like if Viking was under the impression that undersea oil drilling was done primarily with shovels, picks and dynamite.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 16, 2012, 04:12:23 PM
Actually focusing specifically on the criminal law, the situation is almost exactly the opposite from what Martinus thinks in the colonial and early independence period. Criminal law was usually codified and there were a lot of it - because the colonies and early state regimes had a penchant for moral legislation and regulation of vice. Compared to England, the American colonies and states were quicker to adopt public enforcement of criminal law, although effectiveness varied across space and time. Punishments tended to be measurably less severe than in the English system, and as Viking correctly notes, reform movements had strong support in early America.
Can't explain the foundation of American collective empiricism to many Euros, Yanksky. It's an alien concept to them.
Quote from: Brazen on October 15, 2012, 06:41:52 AM
Is this worse than being required to carry ID at all time, unlike civilised parts of the world?
Definitely. You use a regular ID to vote, pay with a credit card, act as a witness in a courthouse and such. You might even be asked to identify yourself by a police officer (I've never been).
But it cannot be tracked. It can't be used to build a profile.
Well, we rarely talk about EU M&A or antitrust law or whatever he works on, so for all we know, he could be an expert in his field of expertise. American criminal law does not seem to be his field of expertise though.
Quote from: Zanza on October 16, 2012, 04:42:53 PM
Well, we rarely talk about EU M&A or antitrust law or whatever he works on, so for all we know, he could be an expert in his field of expertise. American criminal law does not seem to be his field of expertise though.
This. I have no trouble imagining he knows a lot about EU antitrust law - but he feels free to opine on a lot of subjects well outside his field of expertise.
Honestly, how soon before the kids figure out how to disable the chips anyway...
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 16, 2012, 05:27:36 PM
Honestly, how soon before the kids figure out how to disable the chips anyway...
:hug:
Yep, I already brought that up.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 16, 2012, 05:27:36 PM
Honestly, how soon before the kids figure out how to disable the chips anyway...
You kill the entire card that way. If it's being used for other purposes like access control, meals, vending, etc., whole thing's busted.
$75 replacement card fee, billed to your parents.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 05:30:44 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 16, 2012, 05:27:36 PM
Honestly, how soon before the kids figure out how to disable the chips anyway...
You kill the entire card that way. If it's being used for other purposes like access control, meals, vending, etc., whole thing's busted.
$75 replacement card fee, billed to your parents.
And I already spoke to that to. I'm finding it hard to believe that there would be absolutely no mercy for someone who lost their cord and our accidentally damaged theirs - things that would be likely to happen with children.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 05:32:29 PM
And I already spoke to that to. I'm finding it hard to believe that there would be absolutely no mercy for someone who lost their cord and our accidentally damaged theirs - things that would be likely to happen with children.
Fine, we can do it the Harvard University way: first lost badge in a year is free, 2nd replacement badge in a calendar year is $20, and each subsequent one after that is more, more, and more.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 05:40:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 05:32:29 PM
And I already spoke to that to. I'm finding it hard to believe that there would be absolutely no mercy for someone who lost their cord and our accidentally damaged theirs - things that would be likely to happen with children.
Fine, we can do it the Harvard University way: first lost badge in a year is free, 2nd replacement badge in a calendar year is $20, and each subsequent one after that is more, more, and more.
Except this are not college students. They haven't even managed the level of (im)maturity of your Havard undergrad.
Besides the fact that lost can also cover left at home, left on bus, left in locker, etc. I had non-chipped ID badges during my last years of high school and they were a joke as you could always find someone to take pity on you.
Actually pretty similar in college too with the same pity story.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 16, 2012, 03:45:14 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 16, 2012, 01:53:26 PM
Exactly what risk are you taking here then?
Of being in the general vicinity when the awesome power of celestrial wrath is visited upon you as divine vengeance for your notorious blasphemy.
Yes, but that would be from a god we are equally sure does not exist. I am not a christian and neither are you. I deny the holy spirit, so do you. When it comes to Gods who send people to hell we are equally Atheist :contract: , though technically I am less of one since I do not go that one step further and assert that some other Religion is true.
Quote from: Barrister on October 16, 2012, 04:54:54 PM
Quote from: Zanza on October 16, 2012, 04:42:53 PM
Well, we rarely talk about EU M&A or antitrust law or whatever he works on, so for all we know, he could be an expert in his field of expertise. American criminal law does not seem to be his field of expertise though.
This. I have no trouble imagining he knows a lot about EU antitrust law - but he feels free to opine on a lot of subjects well outside his field of expertise.
Well, I do not claim my opinion on these topics is better because I'm a lawyer - so not sure why this is being constantly used against me.
Quote from: Iormlund on October 16, 2012, 04:42:41 PM
Quote from: Brazen on October 15, 2012, 06:41:52 AM
Is this worse than being required to carry ID at all time, unlike civilised parts of the world?
Definitely. You use a regular ID to vote, pay with a credit card, act as a witness in a courthouse and such. You might even be asked to identify yourself by a police officer (I've never been).
But it cannot be tracked. It can't be used to build a profile.
But as others pointed out, the question is whether inefficiency of the current system is one of its fundamental qualities or is it just a secondary quality that does not effect the assessment of the system vis-a-vis its compliance with stuff like human rights and liberties.
I mean under the current system, you could imagine the state hiring millions of cops to identify everyone every 100 metres or so, and amass that data to effectively be able to track anyone anywhere. The only reason we don't do it is that it would be impossible or at least nightmarishly ineffective.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 05:47:50 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 05:40:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 05:32:29 PM
And I already spoke to that to. I'm finding it hard to believe that there would be absolutely no mercy for someone who lost their cord and our accidentally damaged theirs - things that would be likely to happen with children.
Fine, we can do it the Harvard University way: first lost badge in a year is free, 2nd replacement badge in a calendar year is $20, and each subsequent one after that is more, more, and more.
Except this are not college students. They haven't even managed the level of (im)maturity of your Havard undergrad.
Besides the fact that lost can also cover left at home, left on bus, left in locker, etc. I had non-chipped ID badges during my last years of high school and they were a joke as you could always find someone to take pity on you.
Actually pretty similar in college too with the same pity story.
I don't see how any of this contradicts what CdM said. Children lose stuff all the time - that does not mean that parents are not asked to pay for it.
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2012, 01:15:19 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 05:47:50 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 05:40:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 05:32:29 PM
And I already spoke to that to. I'm finding it hard to believe that there would be absolutely no mercy for someone who lost their cord and our accidentally damaged theirs - things that would be likely to happen with children.
Fine, we can do it the Harvard University way: first lost badge in a year is free, 2nd replacement badge in a calendar year is $20, and each subsequent one after that is more, more, and more.
Except this are not college students. They haven't even managed the level of (im)maturity of your Havard undergrad.
Besides the fact that lost can also cover left at home, left on bus, left in locker, etc. I had non-chipped ID badges during my last years of high school and they were a joke as you could always find someone to take pity on you.
Actually pretty similar in college too with the same pity story.
I don't see how any of this contradicts what CdM said. Children lose stuff all the time - that does not mean that parents are not asked to pay for it.
In pretty much none of the cases I listed did anyone pay for anything.
Quote from: Viking on October 17, 2012, 12:52:26 AM
Yes, but that would be from a god we are equally sure does not exist. I am not a christian and neither are you. I deny the holy spirit, so do you. When it comes to Gods who send people to hell we are equally Atheist :contract: , though technically I am less of one since I do not go that one step further and assert that some other Religion is true.
Hell I agree seems a bit sketchy.
But the Old Testament is very big on smiting of blasphemers and sinners, and unless Abraham is hired as defense counsel, collateral damage can be quite significant.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 18, 2012, 11:44:23 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 17, 2012, 12:52:26 AM
Yes, but that would be from a god we are equally sure does not exist. I am not a christian and neither are you. I deny the holy spirit, so do you. When it comes to Gods who send people to hell we are equally Atheist :contract: , though technically I am less of one since I do not go that one step further and assert that some other Religion is true.
Hell I agree seems a bit sketchy.
But the Old Testament is very big on smiting of blasphemers and sinners, and unless Abraham is hired as defense counsel, collateral damage can be quite significant.
Maybe we read different OTs. Mine doesn't have much smiting by god of individual blasphemers and sinners. He commands the israelites to smite the blasphemers and sinners. God didn't do individual sinners, he did cities and planets. I'm pretty sure that I will not be in the same place as the righteous that follow the command to smite. I'm pretty sure my marginal amount of sinning and blaspheming is not the straw that breaks the deity's back and wipes out mankind or my city. The only individuals that god took time out of his busy schedule to fuck with were the faithful job, who's life he fucked up (not to mention his anonymous wife and kids) and the faithful abraham, who suffered the worst april fools joke in history.
So, not I'm not worried.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2012, 05:40:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2012, 05:32:29 PM
And I already spoke to that to. I'm finding it hard to believe that there would be absolutely no mercy for someone who lost their cord and our accidentally damaged theirs - things that would be likely to happen with children.
Fine, we can do it the Harvard University way: first lost badge in a year is free, 2nd replacement badge in a calendar year is $20, and each subsequent one after that is more, more, and more.
This is how I did it at the middle school I worked at. First replacement: Free. Second: $1. Third: $3. Fourth and all others: $5. To a middle schooler, that's a lot of money.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 18, 2012, 11:44:23 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 17, 2012, 12:52:26 AM
Yes, but that would be from a god we are equally sure does not exist. I am not a christian and neither are you. I deny the holy spirit, so do you. When it comes to Gods who send people to hell we are equally Atheist :contract: , though technically I am less of one since I do not go that one step further and assert that some other Religion is true.
Hell I agree seems a bit sketchy.
But the Old Testament is very big on smiting of blasphemers and sinners, and unless Abraham is hired as defense counsel, collateral damage can be quite significant.
I wouldn't want to stand next to him for the simple reason that he might get a very mortal smiting if he is harps on religion that way in person.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 18, 2012, 02:59:24 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 18, 2012, 11:44:23 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 17, 2012, 12:52:26 AM
Yes, but that would be from a god we are equally sure does not exist. I am not a christian and neither are you. I deny the holy spirit, so do you. When it comes to Gods who send people to hell we are equally Atheist :contract: , though technically I am less of one since I do not go that one step further and assert that some other Religion is true.
Hell I agree seems a bit sketchy.
But the Old Testament is very big on smiting of blasphemers and sinners, and unless Abraham is hired as defense counsel, collateral damage can be quite significant.
I wouldn't want to stand next to him for the simple reason that he might get a very mortal smiting if he is harps on religion that way in person.
Yeah, only a true believer would hurt somebody for insulting religion.
I wouldn't want to stand next to him because he'd make me look short.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 18, 2012, 03:21:20 PM
I wouldn't want to stand next to him because he'd make me look short.
I make everybody look short.
On the flip side of the coin, you could stand next to me and look tall.
I don't stand next to other people.
Quote from: Viking on October 18, 2012, 03:14:48 PM
Yeah, only a true believer would hurt somebody for insulting religion.
Lecturing someone about how you don't respect them is a good way to get punched in the chops. There is a reason why you don't discuss religion or politics in polite society.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 18, 2012, 04:00:05 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 18, 2012, 03:14:48 PM
Yeah, only a true believer would hurt somebody for insulting religion.
Lecturing someone about how you don't respect them is a good way to get punched in the chops. There is a reason why you don't discuss religion or politics in polite society.
I'm not the one threatening with violence. :contract:
And?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 18, 2012, 04:09:05 PM
And?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_mveHL3n_4ME%2FTKKm8tTB7lI%2FAAAAAAAAEBQ%2FHpWPH8pK8zA%2Fs1600%2Fmothyallen_massacreinsultislam-vi.jpg&hash=db79840e2e1c2c77121691bf9a4946892962c8d5)
Perhaps even you can see the difference of punching annoying people and massacring them?