Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Clear backpacks, monitored emails: U.S. students under constant surveillance

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 560 posts

Re: Clear backpacks, monitored emails: U.S. students under constant surveillance

#211

Post by [deleted] »

slothtrop wrote: post #129
lolc wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look up how many kids are killed by cars. Then go see how many are killed by guns outside school. Then check how many are killed by guns in school.

Far more school shooting deaths than any other developed country by my count. You're choosing to brush it off because it represents a small percentage of the population. That's a ridiculous position, you could hold the same if school shooting fatalities were in the 10,000s instead of 200s; too insignificant. The weight is in whether it's acceptable or it isn't, not how likely your kid is to get shot. It's been worse…

[deleted]

Re: Clear backpacks, monitored emails: U.S. students under constant surveillance

#212

Post by shadowgovt »

hcurtiss wrote: post #209
shadowgovt wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we can also ask Denmark, Sweden, Germany, or other European countries that tend to be considered the US's economic and cultural peers?

Sure, but I'm not sure the answer would be relevant. As an analogy, just because you haven't used your first aid kit doesn't mean you won't one day need it. To the contrary, we have many examples of countries that left the first aid kit behind only to realize they desperately needed it.

But we're not talking about first aid kits, we're talking about guns. And I think the burden of proof is on those who claim freedom of private firearm ownership works as an anti-tyranny deterrant to play around in the historical fiction realm of how Venezuela, Iraq, Hong Kong, et. al would have turned out differently with a more armed populace (remembering to factor in the possible scenario "Basically the same as it did, only with an awful lot more death when the entrenched military power ramped up the violence level to deal with a populace that could shoot back"). It's probably also relevant in that historical fiction direction to ask whether the "background" level of civilian peacetime death would have been higher or lower and by how much.

Ubiquitous firearm ownership in a society is a bit of a wildcard.

Re: Clear backpacks, monitored emails: U.S. students under constant surveillance

#213

Post by drdeadringer »

zepto wrote: post #112
nguoi wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But clear backpacks do nothing at all to make them safer I must be missing most of my brain then because, to me, this sounds unfounded.

What sounds unfounded?

I think the quoted part about "clear backpacks do nothing at all to make them safer" is what the commenter found unfounded.

Re: Clear backpacks, monitored emails: U.S. students under constant surveillance

#214

Post by crazypyro »

homonculus1 wrote: post #96
foldr wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

School shootings are unacceptably frequent in the US, regardless of how infrequent they are in an absolute sense. Many countries go decades without a single school shooting.

The framing of this comparison is fraught due to unequal bucketing. Most other countries are the size of US states or even cities, so they can boast individually low numbers while in the US everything gets bundled together. The US should instead be compared to something like all of Europe or all of Western Europe.

Perhaps, a comparison versus the rest of the G7?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/us/school-shooting-us-versus-...

Re: Clear backpacks, monitored emails: U.S. students under constant surveillance

#215

Post by jakelazaroff »

chrisseaton wrote: post #180
markus92 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's still blocking, not actively monitoring. Probably because it runs all network traffic through their VPN.

How do you block specific websites without monitoring which website is being visited? That doesn’t make any sense.

For example, downloading a list of prohibited domains to your device and running a local firewall. “Monitoring” in this context implies that someone will be able to later review the websites you’ve visited or tried to visit.

Re: Clear backpacks, monitored emails: U.S. students under constant surveillance

#216

Post by elicash »

kaibee wrote: post #201
elicash wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not trying to take a side (though I'm against clear backpacks and monitoring), but here's a chart I found quickly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/V8zMSpOAM50-sxWp--S6J... Shootings are still rare, just less so.

I suppose if you're comparing 2018 to 2008, then sure. But that seems cherry-picked, since it looks like shootings were more common before then. Then you also have to consider that the population has been growing, so per-capita shootings might be down? And then there's the question of whether body-count is going up. I think combining all of these factors makes the data-set very noisy. I'm sure that OP has the best in…

I think what OP said is pretty clearly correct. If you find a data point contradicting it, please share, but eyeballing what I think it'd be even per capita, I think OP is still right. If you chose a different data point than 10 years, maybe it'd show something else, but OP said 10 years so it seems fair to judge on the basis of what was said.

But certainly school safety is a bigger issue than just shootings.

My own emphasis, personally, would be on mental health issues being on the rise for young people.

Re: Clear backpacks, monitored emails: U.S. students under constant surveillance

#217

Post by ryanmercer »

hollerith wrote: post #177
shadowgovt wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, since you bring it up, there's some evidence that the abstinence-until-21 system the US uses for alcohol does it no favors. It means that instead of being able to learn responsible drinking at home or while younger, America's youth may legally start drinking in college and sort of make up a responsible drinking culture as they go along.

You mention drinking at home. The law bans the purchase of alcohol by children, but does it ban parents giving alcohol to their children? I dont think so.

>but does it ban parents giving alcohol to their children? I dont think so.

It is quite illegal to furnish alcohol to minors

>All states also make it a crime to supply an underage person with alcohol even when there is no money involved.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-def...

And:

>Depending on the situation, one can be charged with a misdemeanor or a felony for supplying alcohol to minors. Most often, supplying alcohol to a minor is considered a misdemeanor offense, but in some jurisdictions, it may be considered a felony depending on the circumstances. Felonies for supplying minors with alcohol are typically charged when there is some type of accident or injury involved with the use of alcohol or the person supplying the alcohol has been convicted of repeated offenses. Typical penalties are outlined below.

https://www.alcohol.org/laws/supplying-alcohol-to-a-minor/

Re: Clear backpacks, monitored emails: U.S. students under constant surveillance

#218

Post by nrclark »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #54
turk73 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather just shut down the schools than give up any more rights. If you haven't noticed, our Federal government is totally out of control and has gone rogue and I don't think it's a very good idea to cede any further power or individual rights to that monster. The right to bear arms was paid for in blood and not just once. Good men laid down their lives so we could have these rights. That a few kooks will shoot up…

> The right to bear arms was paid for in blood and not just once. And worse, gun restrictions only benefit criminals. There's plenty of people who legally own firearms and protect their homes and their property legally. They also avoid plenty of crime since criminals tend to run when a gun is pulled on them especially in stand your ground states. They've tried banning everything in England and criminals will still ki…

Gun ownership doesn't help public safety anywhere near as much as you think.

The number one and number two uses of guns inside a home are suicide and murder of a loved one, respectively. Defending against a home invader is statistically uncommon at best. But people get angry every day, and we all have moments of weakness and vulnerability.

To your point about criminals, have you ever been robbed? A robber isn't going to announce his intentions from 20 feet away.

Does having a gun under your shirt help you if somebody pokes a knife into your back? Maybe you could draw and murder them in revenge as they leave I guess.

I know that gun-safety classes are mandatory for any kind of concealed-carry permit. But I can 100% guarantee that they don't prepare you for the psychological reality of killing somebody.

And let's say you actually find yourself in a situation where drawing your gun makes it better instead of worse - do you use it? If so, prepare yourself to pay every dime you have to a defense attorney, and to give up a year of your life to court proceedings. Even in a stand-your-ground state. And that's assuming you don't miss and hit somebody else by mistake.

Human-nature is to stand by and watch when something bad goes down. Carrying a gun doesn't change that. And a three-day course on gun safety doesn't prepare you for the reality of drawing on a human and firing.

On the other side of the argument - when guns are easy to buy, lots of people buy them legally. Then some of those people have them stolen or sell them. And others resell them.

When guns are cheap and cheerful, it's easy for a criminal to get one. When guns are expensive and hard-to-get, some criminals might still get one. But a lot of other criminals won't go through the effort. Why find an illegal gun dealer when you can buy a kitchen knife at Costco? And believe it or not - that's a big win for overall public safety.

Also if we could get guns out of the hands of the general population, we'd be able to make a better case for de-militarizing our police. And that would be a _huge_ win for public safety.

The US's founders weren't gods, and they didn't have a crystal ball into the future. We shouldn't treat their words as some kind of immortal and perfect document, to be interpreted on a word-by-word basis like bible scholars. And when the US was founded, the common gun needed a ramrod to load the single shot it carried.

Re: Clear backpacks, monitored emails: U.S. students under constant surveillance

#219

Post by shadowgovt »

Kaiyou wrote: post #206
shadowgovt wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get the sense that people in Sweden or Germany feel over-burdened by a lack of liberty.

Animals raised in captivity also don't give off the impression to be too burdened by their situation from the perspective of a casual observer.

I'm going to assume you don't mean to compare the citizens of Sweden and Germany to captive animals.

Re: Clear backpacks, monitored emails: U.S. students under constant surveillance

#220

Post by nguoi »

tomatotomato37 wrote: post #147
nguoi wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But clear backpacks do nothing at all to make them safer I must be missing most of my brain then because, to me, this sounds unfounded.

Someone looking to sneak a gun in would be hiding it in their pant's waistband or some other part of their clothes; inversely if they are looking to commit a public atrocity they'll skip the sneaking part altogether. Mandating clear backpacks is just as much security theater as is banning 4 oz liquid containers at the airport

I don't think that's a fair assertion. Even going in through the front doors with guns in their coats, the perpetrators of Columbine massacre used bags full of bombs.

>if they are looking to commit a public atrocity they'll...

Which gives everyone else a sooner notice to run away. This won't work for e.g. gang violence.

>Mandating clear backpacks is just as much security theater as is banning 4 oz liquid containers at the airport

Yes, they started that after someone actually tried to blow up a plane with bottles of explosive disguised as soft drinks.

Post reply on HN