A firm in Houston took security equipment originally designed for Enron to track visitors and modified it for schools. So far, more than 2,020 schools in 212 districts across the country are using it to monitor students’ locations and tighten the access inside buildings against kidnappings and molestations, USA Today reported.
School officials can now track students from the moment they step on the bus to when they leave the building, via radio frequency tags. Adults, too, are tracked. Anyone entering the premises must have his driver’s license swiped to obtain an instant background check against a national database of sex offenders. A school in Houston has stopped an average of seven offenders a day since the start of the school year.
Is this overdoing it? Or a prudent response to a dangerous world?
Posted by Angie Holladay
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- Daniel on Too many exemptions
- BobChi on Let immigrants run
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- BobChi on Moore has had enough of House
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
36 Comments
Stopped 7 offenders a day? I’m going to guess that these are parents of the children attending the school, that probably had some offense like an 18 year old and a 15 year old?
My child is supposed to have a 1:1 teacher because he is special needs. One day last year I did a surprise visit and found that they didn’t have a 1:1 with him, which placed him in danger. In Kansas, they had been placing kids in boxes for discipline. Our kids can’t tell us what is being done to them in school, and we as parents have the RIGHT to do drop by visits- we OWN the schools! There have been evidence of physical abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect. Don’t tell me “TRUST US”. Just today I did a visit at his school- pre-announced, and lo and behold, they had about 5 adults in the classroom when I was there. I asked “is this the normal number of adults”…seems to me that it was rigged- the principle was even in the room! Tell me she’s there all the time. How was I supposed to see how it really is when I’m not there?
Yes put a security guard at the front door, screen us as we come through, but don’t tell me I can’t go in there to see in a surprise.
Our public schools have become nothing more than zoos, prisons, and petri dishes for the social engineers. Homeschool your kinder people, for God’s sake!
Viva La Revolucion Blanco!!
Its at times hard to decide who is more dangerous, the Puritanical Right or the Tyrannical Left. But I believe the Brits are looking to install this in the entire city of London soon. Already the have cameras that catalog EVERY car tag that enters the city and you pay an 8.00 per day car tax for entering the city. Then they track you wherever you go during the day. They want to use GPS to track all vehicles.
Some states are wanting to start charging you with these GPS devices for how much you use the roads. With these new Hybrids they will see less gas tax revenue so they want to get the tax money by billing you at the end of the year based on mileage they will read from the mandatory GPS in your next new car.
Im sure some pols like Phil Kline will want to eventually put a chip in every young males penis to monitor the age of the what ever they are dipping it in.
Hysteria I tell you.
Geez how did we survive up to this point? When did it all get so dangerous?
“…instant background check against a national database of sex offenders. A school in Houston has stopped an average of seven offenders a day since the start of the school year.”Since the words “sex offender” are preceded by “offender”, are we to assume that the seven offenders a day were sex offenders? If so, then we should be astounded. If not, then we should be astounded at the sloppy reporting. Which is it? Houston has caught over 200 perves?
Its a violation of their civil liberties to be tracked in such a manner.
Are they doing this in high schools where some of the students have reached the age of 18 already?
This may make SOME sense for K-4 kids so they can be found if they hide for some reason. Little kids do that, but I dont think its right for older students to be tracked like inmates in a prison.
It’s all because of the Derby yearbook.
hmmm …
Good God.
This kind of instant and continuous monitoring is not only unnecessary, it’s scary. As a poster put it above, gee, how did we survive so long?
And how many dollars did this cost? Which educational budget – who’s textbooks – got gutted to pay for it?
And guess where this technology is likely to be used next. You guessed it; Britain is already going there.
If your not doing anything wrong then there is no reason to worry about being tracked. Not unless you are a criminal who wants to hide illegal activity or a paranoid who thinks that everyone is out to get you.
As a former substitute teacher I can tell you that ’special needs’ children are on the highest priority list when it comes to placement of teachers and their helpers. Sometimes, substitutes opt out for other teaching sub-jobs because they don’t want to do the special needs, behavioral or learning disability classes. They are harder and require 110 percent attention span. Hard work for such a low wage that subs get.
As far as surveillance goes, I think it’s a good idea. Security is a concern especially in larger schools where there are nooks and crannies that just cannot always be watched by a real person.
Having been around secure facilities in the military, it’s something you get used to and you just go about your business.
Anyone who has spent anytime in a large school knows that camera surveillance is absolutely necessary to protect the children from intrusion, fire, theft and of course school property from vandalism.
Now maybe the old schools with 12 classrooms and one long hallway didn’t need cameras, the teachers could just stick their heads out of the door and take a peek.
Unfortunately, as we become more urban we cannot afford to abandon our children’s safety and security. If you paid attention in class you will find that Maaslov addressed these in the hiearchy of needs. Without safety and security, nothing else can take place in an effective manner.
So, Mr. Get over it, would you allow cops to come into your home for no reason? Do you have any concept of the 4th amendment? I’ve heard people say “if you have nothing to hide …” It does save me some time though, it makes it easier to tell who the idiots are.
As a matter of fact I have heard of the 4th amendment but I have nothing to hide so if the polie want to come into my house you can bet I will let them. If they have a reason they want to come in then it’s gonna take 5 times as long cause they will just go get a warrant so I might as well let them come in now and get it over with.
I have BATF and FBI aholes over to my house on occasion and I always only say:
1) I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY!!!
2) If you do not have a warrant you can not come in, so go take a flying leap at the moon you *&^$ *%$#^& *&@!#$%$#@!@#!!!!!
Viva La Revolucion Blanco!!
4th amendment; an interesting thought.
As much as Ian is a racist ass, he’s right as to substance, if not temperment. The appropriate answer when law enforcement asks to search is always, politely, “NO officer, I will not give consent to a search my residence/vehicle.”(Gosh, given Ian’s statements here, I can’t imagine why ATF/FBI might want to do some investigation . . . ;-) . . . or perhaps this is just paranoid fantasy on Ian’s part).
That said . . . The coming surveillence society raises some interesting problems and questions.
Under current 4th amendment analysis, cameras in public places and the like are not violations of the 4th amendment, as one does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your external image in a public place. Neither is it illegal to track each license plate. However, technology is going places the Founders never imagined. I’m an originalist/textualist when it comes to constitutional interpretation; I believe the Constitution is properly interpreted to mean what exactly what its language says, as that language was understood by those who wrote and ratified it. That doesn’t solve all interpretation problems, but it does give us a firm grounding which limits government around some fixed point.
I don’t know, constitutionally, how to deal with the explosion of surveillance. Much of it is private, not government, so is not constitutionally limited (but could be limited by statute, if we chose to do so). I fear loosing the government from the language of the constitution; we’ve done far too much of that already. At the same time, I don’t want to live in a surveillence society like I think we all see coming. We may need to rethink the “reasonable expectation of privacy” analysis we do now in light of a technological invasive world. Ideas, anyone? You all are smart folks. . . well, most of you.
GMC, I think the key here is “reasonable expectation of privacy”. Thus, the issue is whether one has a reasonable expectation of privacy at any place other than one’s own residence (an issue, by the way, I believe can be supported by a reading of the Fourth Amendment in the way you prefer). The term reasonable expectation of privacy, as GMC knows, is one of judicial crafting by the U.S. Supreme Court, so it is not found in the text of said Amendment.
Clearly, when one is in public, one has no such expectation. Just as clearly, when one is in one’s own home, one has a high epectation, thereby forcing the authorities to obtain a warrant by showing the magistrate probable cause to expect unlawful activity to be occurring in the residence in order to obtain the warrant. Everything in between is not so clear.
I will not give citations to various court decisions, as frankly I don’t have them in front of me, but there are exceptions to the Fourth Amendment protections that have been created by judicial decisions. One is the “plain view” doctrine; another is the “hot pursuit” doctrine. There is the right of the police to “stop and frisk” under certain circumstances without probable cause; any time a vehicle is involved, the restrictions are relaxed, due to the mobility of the vehicle; there is the “inventory” of contents of a vehicle which has been impounded, which is a search, but in many circumstances has been held to not be unlawful; and there are others, such as the right of the police to order a passenger of a stopped motor vehicle to exit, even though there is no evidence, reasonable suspicion, etc. of any violation of the passenger of any law, in order to protect the safety of the officers involved in the stop.
As GMC has so thoughtfully noted, much of the surveillance occurs under private action, and is thus not barred by the Constitutional provisions at issue. Statutory enactment is thus necessary to curb the activities we, the people, find offensive.
In a public school setting, there is “state action” occurring; however, the Supreme Court has ruled that students in a school have a lesser expectation of privacy, based, as I recall, upon the societal interest to guarantee the safety of the students, faculty, et al, in the school. Thus, the right of school officials to enter the lockers of students without the need to meet probable cause standards. While I believe many of the actions cited by Angie might well be “overkill” and repugnant to us in a number of ways, I also believe them to be lawful. On a societal note, who among us wants to be the principal of a school who has to go to the parents and explain why readily available methods to secure the building were not being used after a tragedy such as Columbine?
This is a serious matter; we, as parents and members of society, have to engage in a dialogue and arrive at consensus as to how far the schools should go. As JM so aptly stated, without safety and security, nothing else (including education) can effectively occur.
GMC, for a somewhat more responsive thought, I agree that reanalysis of the reasonable expectation of privacy test is in order. To grapple with the explosion of surveillance technology utilizing the traditional analysis applied by the courts is to loose the government from the strictures of the Constitution even more.
In your opinion, does buttressing the “right to privacy” by expansion into other areas from that already recognized by the Courts provide any meaningful assistance? My thinking on this, inarticulately stated though it may be, is that the fundamental right to privacy is reserved to the people by the Tenth Amendment. As such, it is coequal with the other rights guaranteed by the Constitution. To the extent the government uses the new technology for surveillance of the citizens outside their residence, in situations other than that which is clearly in public, it must show some overriding State Interest to lawfully do so.
Does this make any sense to you, or anyone else? I’ve been mulling this over this day, and although incomplete and perhaps insufficient, I’ve decided to bring it to the blog for criticism and analysis, hoping to spark thought by others.
JM, my son is in inclusion, so he is in a normal classroom with a para. They are not adhering to his IEP at all. I want to make my surprise visits to make sure they’re doing what they are supposed to be doing.
I didn’t post that one in the middle, my troll did-yet another example of why I’d like this board to be moderated.
I do realize there is a safety issue that needs to be addressed here. But cameras? I don’t think we need to go to a fully locked down and monitored society just yet.
Get over it.. you miss the point. It’s about that pesky Constitution and Bill of Rights. We should be free of government intrusion in our normal, daily lives. In fact, it is EXACTLY because we have nothing to hide that we shouldn’t be intruded upon.
Vaughn:
I’d agree with you. I think your analysis as to the “plain view,” “hot pursuit,” etc. exceptions are dead on. I’d note that those exceptions generally exist within the context of police action seeking evidence for arrest and/or prosecution. The generalized surveillence we are rightly concerned about does not happen in that context.
I’m always troubled by refering to the general provisions of the 10th amendment, simply because it is so amorphous. It provides no concrete grounding to base doctrine on. Pretty soon you’re in the area of “penumbras” etc., and we know how flimsy a basis that is for constitutional doctrine. Note in 4th amendment analysis, for example, the courts have shyed away from using the general “reasonableness” test contained in the first clause, and instead have focused on the warrants test, asserting (rightly) that a search without a warrant is presumed to be unreasonable absent one of the exigent circumstances exceptions like those you noted.
But general surveillence in a public place doesn’t hit those issues. Perhaps we’re worrying too much about putting that in a constitutional context.
If there is widespread public uneasiness about general surveillance (and I suspect their is, both amoung “conservatives” and “liberals,” though perhaps for different reasons), we can deal with this through statutory law. As a society we have to decide how much “watching” we are willing to tolerate inthe public sphere, and let the Constitutional doctrines we have now continue to guard the private parts of our lives.
GMC, I think you nailed it. Thank you for your thoughtful response to my Tenth Amendment thought.
The control of surveillance of the citizenry in public will need to be statutory, with the statutes enacted after full, robust public debate.
Many years ago an LA Cop got it in his head that he wanted to search my trunk. I told him “sure, once I see the warrent”. He subsequently pulled over my wife with the same request – and got the same response.
The ultimate with the jerk came later. A State cop and I stopped at the same time for a disabled vehicle in the freeway. As we looked under the hood I handed the patrolman my keys and asked him to get my toolbox – from my trunk. As we worked on the woman’s car who should pull up but that same LA cop. I calmly walked back to my car and closed the trunk.
My point is simple – I had nothing to hide. The state patrolman had a reason to be in my trunk. The LA cop did not. And, I had signed a loyalty oath as a state employee that required me to take that action.
Good on ya, Ben; obviously you got the trunk closed before he could rely on “plain view”.
They have something like this at my son’s middle school. The place is like some sort of detention camp. I have been complaining loudly and all I get is “we have to have this for the students safety!”We are well on our way to becoming a police state.
Vaughn – what really pissed him off was that it was obvious the state cop had been in there!
I suppose they could claim that I had “burglary tools” – but they were with us at the disabled car.
JR: In this time of high profile school shootings, I don’t think school administrators are going to care that some parents object to the security precautions.
I’m sure that you will agree that the most important thing for parents is the safety of their children. Unless it gets ridiculous, I won’t be complaining about measures designed to keep my boy safe.
And if I wasn’t clear, let me be. There should be uneasiness about such general surveillance in public places. I’d propose a statute barring such surveillance, absent specific circumstances. The trick is sorting out just what circumstances warrant surveillance, but I think it wouldn’t be that hard to reach general agreement on that. I also think it would have to be state by state, as I don’t believe the federal government has the constitutional authority to do so.
GMC, I agree as to the fact that there should be uneasiness about surveillance in public places. I am not as sure about state by state, and lack of constitutional authority on the part of the federal government. While I would prefer it be by the several states, if there is some way to tie it to the commerce clause, e.g., then the feds might be able to claim authority.
Perhaps such a statute could be much like the various uniform laws, e.g., UCC, with a general statute drafted by commissioners and subject to adoption after modification by each state.
Fear will be the death of freedom. Living in a police state scares me far worse than death at the hands of some random act.
Outlander?
How will dividing the boys from the girls at lunch prevent school shootings? How will making the kids march in a line to their next class prevent a school shooting? A camera in every class will only insure that such a shooting gets videotaped.
If you are not already seein it, I predict a workplace with this sort of surveillance in order to track every single worker. The bean counting set would like that.
In matters of security I refer to Benjamin Franklin. I prefer we err on the side of freedom.
I don’t usually stop to worry about security cameras. I’m sure they have helped solve crimes and keep people safer when used in the correct environment.
But when I think of how the use of security cameras is spreading, it’s hard to keep the vision of Winston hiding his writings in Orwell’s 1984.
Just how far will the use of security cameras go and where do we draw the line?
Vaughn:
We’ve already used the commerce clause far too much to expand federal power far beyond any semblence of the limited government of delegated powers that was set up. And how you’d tie surveillence in various places to interstate commerce with a straight face is beyond me.
I didn’t write that Ben.
Interesting how the right to privacy, an INTERPRETATION of the 4th Ammendment is so vigorously defended, yet the 2nd Ammendment, as written, fails to evoke the same support.
You are currently living with an interpretation of the 2nd ammendment. You, as a citizen, have a right to bear arms. Taken literally, the 2nd ammendment refers to a well regulated militia. Are you a member of a militia?