26 replies to this topic

[Karlis]

Superintendent issues warning: 'There will be consequences' for not submitting
At the beginning of the school year students at John Jay High School and Anson Jones Middle School within the Northside Independent School District were told their old student ID badges were no longer valid. During registration they were required to obtain new badges containing a radio frequency identification tracker chip.

Students refusing the chips were reportedly threatened with suspension, fines, or being involuntary transferred. Unlike chips used by retailers to track inventory which activate when scanned by a reader, these chips contain batteries and actively broadcast a continuous signal.
Read more

[Stellar]

This will be an issue up until a couple years after the students are forced to have it... Then, it will become accepted just like security cameras are accepted.

[spud the mackem]

Is that not a breach of Human Rights,why should anyone be able to track you,unless you're a criminal.Tell them to stuff it.

[and then]

Karlis, on 07 October 2012 - 12:08 AM, said:

Superintendent issues warning: 'There will be consequences' for not submitting
At the beginning of the school year students at John Jay High School and Anson Jones Middle School within the Northside Independent School District were told their old student ID badges were no longer valid. During registration they were required to obtain new badges containing a radio frequency identification tracker chip.

Students refusing the chips were reportedly threatened with suspension, fines, or being involuntary transferred. Unlike chips used by retailers to track inventory which activate when scanned by a reader, these chips contain batteries and actively broadcast a continuous signal.
Read more

This kind of technology will become ubiquitous in time.  Not enough people will complain or refuse.  It's a loss for liberty.

[Idano]

Oh it's only in the badge, I thought they were chipping students by the headline...swoo

'There will be consequences' for not submitting....meh, heard it all my life

[Stellar]

Not that I'm advocating it, but what'd the difference between this and having complete surveillance through video cameras? Other than the fact that this is more efficient.

[libstaK]

Power corrupts here it seems.  There are always those who feel they should have information and control of the movements of others "for the greater good".  These types seem to feel a sense of entitlement to pry into the lives of those under their "control".  The school's reasons are ridiculous, an old fashioned role call will tell anyone anywhere how many attend the school.  Not to mention student records and grades fgs.

[and then]

Stellar, on 07 October 2012 - 12:21 AM, said:

Not that I'm advocating it, but what'd the difference between this and having complete surveillance through video cameras? Other than the fact that this is more efficient.

I think that's the point, though.  Cams can only track locations and that, imperfectly.  These "GPS" like devices can create data to be stored and analyzed about individual habits and movements and so on...it's like making Guinea Pigs out of students.  My biggest reason not to like it though, is the slippery slope aspect.  In 5 years will it be a quick "ouch" when they insist that an RFID chip be placed under the skin?  The logic then would be - well you already have been tracked like this for years, what's the problem?  See the point?

[libstaK]

Stellar, on 07 October 2012 - 12:21 AM, said:

Not that I'm advocating it, but what'd the difference between this and having complete surveillance through video cameras? Other than the fact that this is more efficient.

Cameras are really only useful to document problems - they are rarely useful for tracking individuals as they go about their law abiding business - unless someone with access is a stalker with alot of time on their hands.  The ID cards can provide minute details of every individual by name every day.  How long before the data starts to be used for more nefarious levels of control? and students find themselves asked why they spent 15 minutes in the yard talking to so and so etc?  How long before substantive but definitively circumstantial evidences start playing a role in students marks? aka: being "known associates of (place "undesirables" name here)" - even while the student themselves have done nothing wrong?

[spud the mackem]

Ha ha , I would get one then chuck it onto  a long distance lorry,and then say that my Uncle brought me to school in his rig,and it must of dropped off my jacket.So they give you another, well put it on the New York subway...going round and round.

[Stellar]

True, but all that, if they wanted to, could also be done with cameras and people to observe and document them, could it not?

[Hilander]

I guess we can look at the bright side, they aren't putting it under their skin.  That will be next.

[Karlis]

and then, on 07 October 2012 - 12:32 AM, said:

~~~ ...

... My biggest reason not to like it though, is the slippery slope aspect.  In 5 years will it be a quick "ouch" when they insist that an RFID chip be placed under the skin?  The logic then would be - well you already have been tracked like this for years, what's the problem?  See the point?

If "wearing" a GPS chip is to be compulsory, why not an implant, injected just under the skin?

An example of a benefit would be, for example; a kidnapped child or adult location would be instantly available. Crime in general should diminish, if a suspect knew that they would be located immediately.

"Assuming" that the technology was not misused, would not the benefits outweigh the negatives?

[spud the mackem]

Karlis, on 07 October 2012 - 12:43 AM, said:

If "wearing" a GPS chip is to be compulsory, why not an implant, injected just under the skin?

An example of a benefit would be, for example; a kidnapped child or adult location would be instantly available. Crime in general should diminish, if a suspect knew that they would be located immediately.

"Assuming" that the technology was not misused, would not the benefits outweigh the negatives?

  Big brother is not only watching you, he's under your skin, No Way .I  wouldnt refuse but they would get sick of me misplacing it, like sticking it on the underside of a Police Car,then you're in Police custody.The next one in the girl friends handbag, for an overnight stay,the next one tied to a log floating down the river, and so on.

[libstaK]

Karlis, on 07 October 2012 - 12:43 AM, said:

If "wearing" a GPS chip is to be compulsory, why not an implant, injected just under the skin?

An example of a benefit would be, for example; a kidnapped child or adult location would be instantly available. Crime in general should diminish, if a suspect knew that they would be located immediately.

"Assuming" that the technology was not misused, would not the benefits outweigh the negatives?

In a perfect world where strangers with power could be trusted with personal information yes, the benefits outweight the negatives.

Very few lack the imagination to see how this could be abused by levels of power that are intrinsically susceptible to corruption and special interest groups, we just are not evolved enough to justify "rose tinted glass" views on the technology imo.