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

221–230 of 560 posts

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

#221

Post by discreditable »

I work IT at a school. I try to strike a balance. I try to avoid doing creepy things in the name of security theater. I don't do TLS MITM, even though it might make web filtering easier. We do have some classroom monitoring software, but it can only be used while students are on our network.

I agree that there is a bit too much reliance on technical measures (ex: monitoring software) to police computer usage. This can be in absence of teaching kids personal responsibility. However, in a classroom environment it helps teachers immensely. While 80% of your students might handle themselves mostly, trying to police those remaining manually can eat up a lot of instructional time.

One point on the article:

> Teenagers are warned that the school is tracking what they do, and that they can get in trouble for visiting inappropriate websites.

If the school gets gov funds for IT, they have to be CIPA compliant[0]. This includes filtering adult websites and logging access to them. Fail to do so and you lose access to a lot of government funding through E-Rate[1]. The law is vague and somewhat up to school admin interpretation. I've seen some pretty intense surveillance regimes implemented in the name of CIPA.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Internet_Protecti... 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Rate

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

#222

Post by detritus »

slowhand09 wrote: post #197
rahuldottech wrote: post #20

THIS IS NOT OKAY. We can't have children being used to constant surveillance and accepting this as a part of life. It sets them up for so many problems in the future, where they won't understand the serious implications of constant tracking and surveillance. And sure, nothing too bad comes out of this stuff right now in most of the world, but have you seen China? The minute a government decides to do so, all that dat…

Funny this article coming from the Guardian which I believe is a British publication. And London being the only city in the top 10 for surveillance outside of China. https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surv...

My local corner shop has about 16 CCTV cameras in it, covering as many angles in the shop as they can. This is common. Very common.

I'm totally OK with that kind of apparently 'pervasive' CCTV coverage - we're not talking government-owned networked cameras linked up to face/gait/whatever recognition systems or deep cold storage banks, we're talking small store-owners keeping an eye on junkies and thieves.

The oft-regurgitated "x cameras per thousand people" narrative tends to overlook obviousness like this.

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

#223

Post by ravenstine »

zepto wrote: post #9
umvi wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unpopular opinion: basically no one dies by guns in schools so don't even bother with clear backpacks.

Exactly. Force schools to quantify this risk against others. More kids die cycling to school than by guns.

More people die of hypothermia every year than get killed from mass shootings.

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

#224

Post by noonespecial »

nguoi wrote: post #159
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone who wants to pack heat to school isn't gonna be stopped by a clear backpack. They'll cut out a texbook or hide it on their person. Look to the TSA's track record to see why making the formerly hidden visible doesn't actually help that much.

Look at how that same argument fails to apply to suicide statistics being reduced by removing access to guns or falls from bridges. You're trying to apply a logical train of thought to an inherently illogical act of homicide. But even if you can apply that, it doesn't work. The gun and ammo you can fit in a textbook is smaller than what can fit in a backpack. Backpacks are good at carrying things, that's why we - and…

There are an unlimited number of things that risk dead children. Chewing gum, shoelaces, bicycles, model rocketry, shop class, video game marathons, crosswalks...

How sure do we have to be to ban them all?

There is in my opinion a very clear danger associated with setting up draconian surveillance states borne out by history. How sure do we have to be before we ban those?

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

#225

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

TheRealSteel wrote: post #102
giancarlostoro wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 restrictions only benefit criminals" All the data from other countries that god rid of guns supports the opposite of this. Show some statistics or stop saying this. "are you gonna make cars illegal too?" Ones that can be easily used to kill people? Hopefully, eventually, yes. We already heavily restrict them, license them carefully, track them meticulously, require them to be registered, and constantly improve t…

Go ahead and compare rural US where all the guns are to rural Europe. Similar rates of crime and violence. Take out the major US metropolitan areas that have gun control and see what happens to your comparisons.

When you compare an island the size of Mississippi with 29 citizens of 250k population and a much larger homogenous population, historically weak self-defense and higher reliance on government, etc etc to the whole of the US - I personally don’t think that’s an apt comparison at all.

Why is it size AND population similar countries aren’t ever compared when making this “gunz are bad” argument?

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

#226

Post by Rooster61 »

detritus wrote: post #222
slowhand09 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny this article coming from the Guardian which I believe is a British publication. And London being the only city in the top 10 for surveillance outside of China. https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surv...

My local corner shop has about 16 CCTV cameras in it, covering as many angles in the shop as they can. This is common. Very common. I'm totally OK with that kind of apparently 'pervasive' CCTV coverage - we're not talking government-owned networked cameras linked up to face/gait/whatever recognition systems or deep cold storage banks, we're talking small store-owners keeping an eye on junkies and thieves. The oft-reg…

Mind showing me a camera that you can definitively say the government (or other actors) don't have the potential for backdoor access to?

I certainly can't.

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

#227

Post by voxic11 »

ryanmercer wrote: post #217
hollerith wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. M…

Most states exempt parents from such laws. For example Massachusetts law says

> For the purpose of this section the word ''furnish'' shall mean to knowingly or intentionally supply, give, or provide to or allow a person under 21 years of age except for the children and grandchildren of the person being charged to possess alcoholic beverages on premises or property owned or controlled by the person charged.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Cha...

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

#228

Post by stallmanite »

shadowgovt wrote: post #100
okhumans wrote: post #3

Disappointed to see the young being indoctrinated so early to accept the surveillance state.

Unpopular prediction: The US of the future is going to look a lot like what we would currently consider a "surveillance state" than it does now, and on the whole that's going to be okay. I think "Transparent Society" has the right idea; these technologies are ubiquitous and cheap, and the question of the near future isn't going to be whether they're deployed but who controls the feed. If we pretend the answer can be…

What if you’re outside what’s currently considered normal? I’m sure gay people would have loved a surveillance society in the 50s. What the fuck man?

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

#229

Post by detritus »

Rooster61 wrote: post #226
detritus wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My local corner shop has about 16 CCTV cameras in it, covering as many angles in the shop as they can. This is common. Very common. I'm totally OK with that kind of apparently 'pervasive' CCTV coverage - we're not talking government-owned networked cameras linked up to face/gait/whatever recognition systems or deep cold storage banks, we're talking small store-owners keeping an eye on junkies and thieves. The oft-reg…

Mind showing me a camera that you can definitively say the government (or other actors) don't have the potential for backdoor access to? I certainly can't.

Nope, and in case of crime, most local police forces can simply walk into local stores and request recordings from the last X days, so quite why they'd need illicit backdoors, I don't know.

I'm also entirely fine with this.

Backdoors in cheap CCTV being accessed illicitly at a mass-level is an entirely different problem, and one which I'd agree would need questioning.

I doubt there's much value in that concern for another decade, until the majority of CCTV cameras are ultra high resolution/30+fps, which they're not.

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

#230

Post by ameister14 »

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.

You can do it a couple of ways. You can whitelist sites, where all sites not on the list are automatically blocked, or you can blacklist them, where sites matching certain characteristics or on a particular list are blocked. Neither way necessitates logs or monitoring.
Post reply on HN