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

School demands search of text messaging, outside of school

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 114 posts

Re: School demands search of text messaging, outside of school

#41

Post by mikkergp »

Someone1234 wrote: post #16

Let me provide a common hypothetical: - A student is being bullied. This bullying is happening using social media and or text messages. These messages are being sent at various times pseudo-anonymously but there's strong reason to know who it is. Who, exactly, is the authority who we expect to look into this? Is it the police? Using what law/powers? Are social workers empowered? We're clearly not ok with the school d…

If the school suspected bullying why wouldn’t they get the parents involved and ask them to look through the phone. I mean this isn’t a case where a kid came to a teacher and asked them for help right? I understand the case of a school helping a student without a parents consent if the student initiated the interaction, it seems unreasonable if it’s the other way around.

Re: School demands search of text messaging, outside of school

#42

Post by mlyle »

vorpalhex wrote: post #38
mlyle wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The exact limits of a public school's authority to search mobile devices, to handle events that have partially occurred outside school, has not been established. Here's a nice summary: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1159120.pdf

If they search my mobile device, they will deal with police and the court system. Whether the phone is in my posession or my kids is irrelevant.

As the document shows, many instances of schools searching students' mobile devices without a warrant have been shown to be constitutional in appellate courts.

Re: School demands search of text messaging, outside of school

#43

Post by tailrecursion »

If it could be done technically, setting a child's phone to receive only messages that include a valid ID would discourage abuse by making abuse traceable. The school would insist that all children's phones are set up this way so that there's no stigma attached to a particular child not receiving SMS or whatever.

But it's simpler to let the police handle the problem and determine whether it's harassment, or if it's a case of crybullying.

A school's not going to be able to stop bullying. But with message tracking devices in everyone's hand and cameras everywhere, the SCHOOL's problems are solvable without having to go into childrens' phones.

Re: School demands search of text messaging, outside of school

#44

Post by josephcsible »

tailrecursion wrote: post #43

If it could be done technically, setting a child's phone to receive only messages that include a valid ID would discourage abuse by making abuse traceable. The school would insist that all children's phones are set up this way so that there's no stigma attached to a particular child not receiving SMS or whatever. But it's simpler to let the police handle the problem and determine whether it's harassment, or if it's a…

> The school would insist that all children's phones are set up this way

Unless the school is paying for your kid's phone and plan, they should have exactly zero say in how it's set up.

Re: School demands search of text messaging, outside of school

#45

Post by UIUC_06 »

Over and above hypotheticals about "they know each other from school" or "it affects the learning environment":

School administrations should have less power than they have now, rather than more. If you let them be responsible for kids' actions outside of school, nothing good will come of it. They're not competent to take on that job.

Re: School demands search of text messaging, outside of school

#46

Post by clcaev »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #25
djbusby wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parents are not reliable. It's an unpleasant experience asking another parent to tell their kid to stop bullying your kid...and then being told "fuck you".

> It's an unpleasant experience asking another parent to tell their kid to stop bullying your kid...and then being told "fuck you" Then police.

> Then the police.

In some regions, this is a bit unrealistic.

I grew up in a neighborhood where the bully's dad was the police captain. The bully would target brown kids and property of their parents (e.g. M80 down the chimney, among other atrocities). Everyone in town new the son acted with impunity. Kids our age knew it was worse: the dad actively encouraged his son, and gave him the M80s. No one would talk about it in public, less they be targeted as well.

Re: School demands search of text messaging, outside of school

#47

Post by cvoss »

drekk wrote: post #24
ivraatiems wrote: post #3

American schools are so authoritarian, it's no wonder we are having such a problem preserving faith in our system of democracy in the United States. In public schools, the word of unelected random adults is law, the rules are completely arbitrary, students have no right to privacy, no freedom of movement, sometimes not even control over how they dress or who they speak to. If an American public school was a country,…

What democracy exists in the US? You don't vote for your president. The preferences of the American public have a statistically insignificant effect on which legislative policies get passed. Popular suffrage has existed in the country for ~50 years since indigenous women got the vote. Do I even have to get into what total lack of privacy we enjoy in the "free world"? Come on. I'm tired of Americans comparing anything…

The American conception of democracy does not, by any means, refer to an ability to get the government to carry out the will of 51% of the populace. It is even specifically designed _not_ to do that, on purpose, for very good reasons. Here are some:

- 51% of people can do wrong against the other 49%.

- 51% of people can do wrong against themselves by making an uninformed decision.

- Tomorrow the 51% become the 49% and vice versa. If unchecked power was given to whoever was currently 51%, it would spell whiplash and chaos.

So you structure the whole thing into smaller deliberative bodies where people (who are periodically selected by 51% majorities) have better information and means to strike good compromises that are unattainable through raw public opinion. A fuller and more appropriate name for this is "a democratic republic", for which "democracy" is used as a shorthand.

Some of these bodies have authority only over local areas, because you can make a more tailored decision when you have fewer things to deal with. Some of these local bodies, as another commenter noted, may conduct referendums to decide whether to make a law. Other bodies have authority over the whole land, but only over coarse-grained topics with only highly limited authority over the smaller local bodies.

And at the highest level, there is one body where people's very local representatives have a vote and another body where people's region-wide representatives have a vote, and these bodies must agree in order to do most things.

And you make one small body almost completely insulated from public opinion so that you can task it with protecting not just 49% from the whims of 51%, but protecting one individual person (yes, even a guilty criminal individual) against the rest of the government and against whatsoever the remaining 330 million people may think of this person.

And yes, the vote for the president is not a raw popular vote. There is a level of indirection through another body that often does, but may not, yield the same result as a popular vote would. But it does not logically follow that Americans do not vote for their president.

And you don't let the president make laws or rule on cases or send the country to war.

The guiding principle is not to let one person or one group of people have too much power. A majority of Americans having consensus on a given issue is one such group whose power is intentionally limited.

Could the whole thing be designed better than it is? Of course. Will people always screw it up no matter how well designed it is? Of course.

Re: School demands search of text messaging, outside of school

#48

Post by ivraatiems »

drekk wrote: post #24
ivraatiems wrote: post #3

American schools are so authoritarian, it's no wonder we are having such a problem preserving faith in our system of democracy in the United States. In public schools, the word of unelected random adults is law, the rules are completely arbitrary, students have no right to privacy, no freedom of movement, sometimes not even control over how they dress or who they speak to. If an American public school was a country,…

What democracy exists in the US? You don't vote for your president. The preferences of the American public have a statistically insignificant effect on which legislative policies get passed. Popular suffrage has existed in the country for ~50 years since indigenous women got the vote. Do I even have to get into what total lack of privacy we enjoy in the "free world"? Come on. I'm tired of Americans comparing anything…

Look, I'm not out here to argue that the United States is some incredible bastion of freedom on every issue for all time - but arguing that it doesn't deserve a favorable comparison to Russia or China or, yes, Chile, on the democracy front is just nonsense. It's not grounded in facts or reality. Arguing that the US itself isn't governed as a democracy because you don't like how the elected government behaves on the world stage is just a non sequitur. That America did something bad doesn't mean other places aren't worse.

Living in the United States now, as oppressive as it can be, is still living in one of the freest societies that's ever existed in history. You may think I'm saying that because I'm ignorant, but no, I am fully aware of all the ways the US is awful towards minorities of every stripe, of the poverty, of the gun crime, problems with access to healthcare, etc etc etc. I made my original post to criticize the US education system. I know about all of that and the United States is still better to live in than most of the world.

It doesn't mean I wouldn't like it to be better, that I'm not worried about how things are changing, or that everything - or even most things - the US has done are good. But we need to talk about the reality of the situation and you're not.

When my point is "the US should live up to its ideals", arguing "the US will never live up to its ideals no matter what" or "well, other people in X country don't like the US" is just unhelpful.

Re: School demands search of text messaging, outside of school

#49

Post by mlyle »

cvoss wrote: post #47
drekk wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What democracy exists in the US? You don't vote for your president. The preferences of the American public have a statistically insignificant effect on which legislative policies get passed. Popular suffrage has existed in the country for ~50 years since indigenous women got the vote. Do I even have to get into what total lack of privacy we enjoy in the "free world"? Come on. I'm tired of Americans comparing anything…

The American conception of democracy does not, by any means, refer to an ability to get the government to carry out the will of 51% of the populace. It is even specifically designed _not_ to do that, on purpose, for very good reasons. Here are some: - 51% of people can do wrong against the other 49%. - 51% of people can do wrong against themselves by making an uninformed decision. - Tomorrow the 51% become the 49% an…

> And yes, the vote for the president is not a raw popular vote. There is a level of indirection through another body that often does, but may not, yield the same result as a popular vote would. But it does not logically follow that Americans do not vote for their president.

I think this is an interesting way the criticism was phrased about the electoral college. I mean, across world governments, it's pretty dang common for the executive of a government to not just be chosen by the populace.

Re: School demands search of text messaging, outside of school

#50

Post by tailrecursion »

josephcsible wrote: post #44
tailrecursion wrote: post #43

If it could be done technically, setting a child's phone to receive only messages that include a valid ID would discourage abuse by making abuse traceable. The school would insist that all children's phones are set up this way so that there's no stigma attached to a particular child not receiving SMS or whatever. But it's simpler to let the police handle the problem and determine whether it's harassment, or if it's a…

> The school would insist that all children's phones are set up this way Unless the school is paying for your kid's phone and plan, they should have exactly zero say in how it's set up.

The child's phone can be set up one way or another.

In this hypothetical scheme (described above), a child complaining about anonymous abusive messages is ignored by the school. School's not responsible, because the child's phone is set up improperly. If phone were in order, phone would not receive anonymous messages.

A child receiving a traceable abusive message is quickly resolved, and presumably this kind of abuse is rare, for obvious reasons.

Everyone is happy. The school's happy because, under this scheme, they have virtually no work to do in connection with online harassment. The police are happy because fewer harassment cases are being opened (this is true only if most kids set their phone as instructed by the school). Kids are slightly less miserable because online bullying has been made more difficult to pull off.

Finally, sticklers like the parent are happy because they can continue to set up their phone "wrong" and receive anonymous abuse. Which the school won't look into and will presumably pass off to the police.

Post reply on HN