Tagging School Kids

[DrLove42]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20461752

Once again another story on the idiot 0.001% of Americans who make the news over here (just to clarify - i mean that only a small percentage of the population are idiots, but they're the ones who make the news)

School digitally tags their students to keep track of them in the building during the day and keep a digital register of who attends what classes.

One student objects - not because its a breach in freedom, but becuase the barcode breaches her RELIGIOUS rights as it could be seen "as the number of the beast"

[alshrive]

I would object to wearing one as an invasion of my privacy not for religious reasons- funny you should post this though because i was just reading it on the bbc and thought ooooh i could share that with the Bols-folk!

[DrLove42]

Theres a line. And its not a Hogwarts style big brother "i know where everyone is real time" map, it just lists people in rooms as they tag in. its not GPS, but close contact stuff, like the ID card i use to get into my building or lab.

In theory it sounds good to me, Show people who skip and skive and stuff.

[alshrive]

I understand the principle, and logistically i agree with it. It is just on a moral level I have an issue with it. If it starts in schools it can then be spread and before long what do you know, you are tracked.....everywhere.

[Wolfshade]

16 It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, 17 so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.

18 This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man.[a] That number is 666.

The tag around her neck does not consitute a mark on her head or hand, nor is the school refusing to trade with her unless she has the tag. Not to mention that the school authority catagorically fails to look like the beast as describe in Revelations.

[alshrive]

the school is essentially refusing to trade with her because they want to suspend her for not wearing it....

[Wolfshade]

But the school does not have two horns like a lamb....

[Wildeybeast]

I was hoping this was going to be an article about the Battle Royale style tags. I was disappointed.

[Mud Duck]

But a breach of religious rights will be taken more seriously in her favor in a court setting then one of freedom, as this is in Texas. A issue of freedom is more or less null as the tag SHOULDN'T work outside of the school grounds (5 bucks sez that it will and the information on the chip isn't protected), and being at school one shouldn't expect freedoms as it is a controlled and regulated environment. I also surprised that she didn't bring up the possibilities of health issues with these things, all those scanners and radio waves and whatnots can't be good for a body.

[Denzark]

If she gets the barcode, does she tell people to: 'Play the best song in the world, or I'll eat your souls...'

[Wolfshade]

In a follow up to this the girl has lost her case.

Though it doesn't give the reasons why

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20957587

[DrLove42]

Cos her reasoning was insane, and the courts have shown some common sense instead of covering their *** against political correctness?

[Wolfshade]

They argued that it was a secular choice not a religious, which is a strange one in itself. It now points to the courts being the arbitrator of what is secular and what is not.

[eldargal]

While her reasoning was ludicrous, I loathe the idea of tagging people without their consent.

[Mr Mystery]

They argued that it was a secular choice not a religious, which is a strange one in itself. It now points to the courts being the arbitrator of what is secular and what is not.

To be fair, courts are very much there to be arbitrator no? Even when you're nicked and charged, it's down to a Court to determine your guilt if you plead not guilty.

Why should this be any different? Secularism requires a legal definition as much as any other.

[DrLove42]

Its a grey area.

The technology isn't going to be plotting her exact location on a computer every step, just where she is and what rooms. Its more like a register that is automatic than the tracking technology that is doubtlessly built into her phone.

[Psychosplodge]

Is it a GPS tag giving location all times on premises, or is it a access control tag that merely monitors you clocking in and out of rooms for lessons?

[DrLove42]

The oringinal story described it as a RF tag that scanned as you entered rooms.

[Psychosplodge]

It's just a variation on an access control system, I've seen them on several sites, complete overaction, can also be used to automatically print a list of people on site in the activation of the fire alarm.

[Wolfshade]

Its a grey area.

The technology isn't going to be plotting her exact location on a computer every step, just where she is and what rooms. Its more like a register that is automatic than the tracking technology that is doubtlessly built into her phone.

We already have that :) Infact it was rather spectaular to be able to plot peoples movement during the Olympic games.

I agree that the courts should be the arbitrators, indeed in England and Wales courts effect more laws than Parliment. But the issue is that was the judge qualified to determine if it were a valid non-secular.

Of course the issue is side stepped by pointing out that the school was free to remoe her if she failed to wear the tag given appropriate measures have been provided to accomodate her beliefs.

[Nabterayl]

Yeah, this is just a variation on "everybody make a check by your name on the whiteboard when you walk in." It's not "tagging." The only way it could become tagging is if there were an RFID reader installed, like, every two feet in the corridors.

As for whether a court was qualified to determine if it was a religious vs. a secular choice ... if not the judge, then who? I find that oftentimes when people complain about judges making this kind of choice they forget that the litigants came to the courts, not the other way around. So Hernandez comes into the courtroom and says, "This is a religious choice I'm making." Do we really want our courts to accept it at face value every time somebody plays the religious card? "I'm not paying my taxes for, uh ... religious reasons." "Oh, right then. Strict scrutiny it is!" When plays the religious card, a judge has to have at least some ability to call bullsh*t.

[Wolfshade]

Most people are tracked and tagged, certainly all these lovely GPS chips people seem to carry with them are monitored and reported on.
For me it is great I use that sort of data frequently, as I do point to point monitoring through ANPR systems, and those are even better as they let you know not just that there is a person at x but have a fair idea who that person is.
I do agree the the judges should be the sole arbitrator, though there are issues with judges interpritations of the law but that it as universal problem as we all have our own personal biases.
For me the interesting part isn't in this, what I would call ridiculous case, it is the extension, can a judge now rule that something is not religious and how this interacts with those relgions organisations on the fringes, then how those fringes are moved and the possible impacts on the freedom of religious expression.

[Wolfshade]

Double post

[YorkNecromancer]

One student objects - not because its a breach in freedom, but becuase the barcode breaches her RELIGIOUS rights as it could be seen "as the number of the beast"

But what if she actually IS The Antichrist?

Has she considered that?

Oh wait, she'd complain then anyway - Prince of Lies and all that.

Nevermind.

[Nabterayl]

For me the interesting part ... is the extension, can a judge now rule that something is not religious and how this interacts with those relgions organisations on the fringes, then how those fringes are moved and the possible impacts on the freedom of religious expression.
Strictly speaking, no. A judge has always been able to rule that something is not religious. It's not something they do frequently, but the power is implicit in the English tradition of law, where essentially nothing happens in a court unless the presiding judge recognizes it. In English law, as you probably know, 1+1 does not equal 2 unless the court acknowledges it so.