QOTD: Should Schools Use Laptops to Watch Kids?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
This people should be taken in front of a judge to explain why they are watching kids while they are doing what they do.
It's privacy violation and sounds really perv too.
Plus I'm sure they never sign for a contract allowing the school to do so.
Put cameras on he hallways but don't go further than that cos is not right.
 
We need to MAKE SURE that school districts in our country cease and desist ANY form of in-home pupil monitoring immediately.

But, if you think we have it bad - check out this article from August 2009
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/britain-to-put-cctv-cameras-inside-private-homes/

 
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/britain-to-put-cctv-cameras-inside-private-homes/

We need to make sure we end all in-home pupil monitoring, before we reach the ridiculousness of the above link. Check it out!
 
one problem i see from earlier that someone posted it that you physically arnt aloud to use your own laptop. thats like using your personal pc without putting it on active directory or without any of the network security on a private buisness network. these are kids and shouldnt have to worry about that. i have a cousin that is 16 in high school and has a school issued netbook. the second i heard about this bs i went to her house and reformated rejoined it to the domain disabled all the extra bs in the bios after cracking there little password and basically made it so that they cant do that.
 
JMcEntegart I agree with you that they should be able to keep tabs on students during school hours, at least keep tabs on IM and things like that. But once the students leave the school, the school has no right to watch the students.
 
[citation][nom]JMcEntegart[/nom]I disagree. I think schools should be allowed monitor what students are doing during class on laptops the school has paid for. I don't think they should be allowed to use the webcams to do so and I don't think they should be allowed to check on them outside school hours.[/citation]

and what if cheerleaders brings the laptops into their changeroom and start using it? sure it doesn't sound that plausible, but there are always ppl doing implausible stuff.
 
Let some school administrator spy on my daughter and see what happens. We will discuss it right after I rip their eyeballs out through their a$$. I won't bother with a call to the police or a lawsuit, but I bet they will wish I had.
 
The bigger Picture here is a controlled society, this idea was not thought up in the school system, it's a world elite tatic. These insane power mongers, what to play God, seeing and knowing everything we do.

It's wont be long until they try to chip every man, woman and child. There's even hidden legislation in Obama's health care reform to open the door for the chip.

People need to wake up! :)
 
you know how they say "there is no such thing as a stupid question" that's the biggest misnomer in existence. They are essentially doing the equi\/alent of illegal wire tapping.
 
Security cameras are OK, but to watch a child through a computer's webcam is crossing the line. There are so many legal issues that the school district can be sued over.

I don't think any parent in their right mind would allow the school(or anyone) to spy on their kid.
 
I understand what they're trying to accomplish however i think there are other methods of doing this without using the webcam, there's just way too many ethical issues here such as "Invasion of Privacy" for using this either as a theft deterrent system or a way retrieving a lost laptop... such as a built-in GPS device...
 
[citation][nom]Shadow703793[/nom]Couldn't have said it any better. This is a clear violation of privacy (esp. for a female student).[/citation]
Um I have a 13 yr old boy and i think his privacy rights are the same as a 13yr old girl, 20/35/40/80 male or female, it don't matter.

I actually think its worse for a boy lol.... SERIOUSLY if you turn a webcam on a 13 yr old boy @ night and hes alone, what are u going to see? hes male...13..on the internet... he likely isn't reading toms hardware. Tom's Hard Where?
 
Why take a picture of the what the stolen laptop can see? Chances are the thief doesn't go to school, so what would a pic do? And Hell NO!
 
I think that if they installed an application that couldn't just go ahead and do it but rather it would request permission, then that way you can say "no" or "yes". Instead of them just sneaking in they would be polite.
 
First: I think that in some cases, the school does have the right to enforce rules about behavior outside of school hours. This most commonly happens with school sports; to play, you typically have to sign something stating that you acknowledge a prohibition of drinking, smoking, yada yada or you will be kicked off the team. If you sign that document, you are agreeing to conform to certain behavior restrictions in exchange for being able to participate.

Second: I cannot think of a valid, supportable reason for allowing the use of cameras to spy on student behavior w/out a warrant. Not only does this violate the privacy of the student with the laptop, but it also violates the privacy of innocent bystanders. Most gyms have policies about the use of camera phones in locker rooms for obvious reasons. These laptops are not under the control of the people who know what the camera will show, so there is no way to ensure that innocent bystanders will not get affected without either covering the camera or turning off the laptop. Imagine my hypothetical daughter carries her laptop into the lockerroom because she went their straight from math class, and sets it down on the sink. Then imagine that your hypothetical daughter walks in and gets ready for gym class.

Now imagine that an IT guy, or some perv hacker, sets up a special wifi router in the bathroom that instructs a control computer that the camera is "in range" - and the camera is then activated. Now my daughter is a victim and also an unwitting accomplice (through the negligence of bringing in the laptop) to child pornography, and your daughter is exposed on the internet. There is nothing you can do in this scenario to protect your daughter, short of prohibiting this type of software on school laptops - and prohibiting camera devices in the lockerroom.
 
No, using cameras to monitor students is not a good idea for more than just the already mentioned privacy issues. It reflects poorly of the administration of this school as the action taken builds focus on catching kids doing something wrong. Let's expend the same effort in teaching kids to be productive members of society instead. Instead, we're giving them a lesson on how to get around "the system" with a two cent piece of tape.
 
Well, on the other hand, who else should watch over our children? Certainly not the parents since it's never their faults when their children turned out to be criminals.
 
[citation][nom]shadow187[/nom]Watch the pedophiles flock to teacher positions.[/citation]

Hahaha. I agree. I'm pretty sure they'll be willing to take the sacrifice of studying a couple of years so they can get their nirvana at some teenager classroom filled with camera spying laptops.
 
In school, let them. When my daughter is in school, they are responsible for her and can watch her (indecent spying excluded).

In my home, never never never never. Even if she is using school-issued equipment on a school network. I'd run to the nearest police station.
 
[citation][nom]JMcEntegart[/nom]1. Yes, it was a broad question but I genuinely do not think it was "in support of the surveillance society." The question was (and still is), do you think an institute of education handing out laptops for school use has the right to monitor what children do on those laptops?[/citation]
Even if you didn't voluntarily thought it that way, it unfortunately got so. Such a preposterous question, put a decade ago, would've instantly got you ostracized from a civilized society's mass media. Today, with the whole "security" FUD, the brains of the feeble minded are more or less anesthesized to such issues...
No, even if it's their property, voluntarily giving it away to someone else to use, voids any such "rights" - it's preposterous even to claim such "rights" existed in the first place. The responsibility of the actions lies exclusively on the user, and not the owner of an object. If you consider the user irresponsible, then don't give him the object in the first place.
Your justification is suffering from the same fundamental flaw, like e.g. the one invoked by the xxAA gangsters to blame ISPs for the actions of their clients.
[citation][nom]JMcEntegart[/nom]2. I didn't just chime in with my personal opinion "after a lot of negative comments." The article was posted after I finished work. Once I was done watching the hockey, I came to check comments and gave my two cents.[/citation]
You "nuanced" your stance after most, if not all, comments were negative to your unfortunately formulated question. Even if it genuinely wasn't so intended, it surely creates such impression. It would be recommendable to make the things right from the beginning, so that no later corrective, potentially embarrassing, action is necessary. Anything to the contrary would just promote irresponsibility. Also, please re-read the previous comments on deontological ethics.
[citation][nom]JMcEntegart[/nom]3. Inside school hours means while the child is in class.[/citation]
Just another unfortunate formulation... "During" would've been much better. Or did you intended to mean "inside school premises"?
[citation][nom]JMcEntegart[/nom]4. The QOTD series has been around for nearly a year. It focuses on current affairs in the tech industry. It is not a news post, and it is clearly marked with a QOTD tag. We have covered the issues in this week's QOTD already in news posts. These are clearly linked in the article.[/citation]
If it wasn't a news article, it surely looks like one - as it surely isn't, and shouldn't be mixed with, a personal opinion one - just with a question grafted on... (Do you see any question marks beside the final one?) It would've been much better to refrain to just that: a question, with eventual links to the matter at hand, for the uninformed.
[citation][nom]JMcEntegart[/nom]5. It is not a "late innovation." I have been doing it since late 2008/early 2009 and I see nothing wrong with encouraging people to post their own views. You may not like it but at the end of the day, I can't please everyone and it has helped promote interesting discussions, which makes the site more interesting for a lot of people. You can't argue with results.[/citation]
Even if a year already passed, it doesn't make them more desirable, or useful - and a year is hardly enough time to consider it "traditional"...
The existence of the comments section is encouragement enough, and, as such, any ending question superfluous. It's just a futile attempt to stir more comments - do you really believe it had an influence on the number, or quality, of the comments?
May I ask "what results"? Do you have any proof for your assumption, except the desire to consider it as such?
[citation][nom]JMcEntegart[/nom]6. I'm not promoting 'covert surveillance.' I'm saying if kids aren't allowed to pass notes in class, they should not be allowed to chat on AIM. If they're not allowed [to] organise [SIC] their social calendars while their teacher is speaking, they should not be allowed check their Facebook.[/citation]
What would you then name the proposed surveillance methods, without the target's knowledge? There are other means to limit access to undesired contents, or activities, not involving intrusive spyware.
You're coming with the same lame excuses for covert surveillance, as the police states governments do: "covert spying is for the sheeple's good"...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom