Long time ago I talked to a friend about cameras in classrooms. I commented about how many problems it prevents. He explained a definition of moral: moral is the non physical limitation that bars you from doing something you want but harms another person even if you won't be punished.
It was then explained to me that children who grow in over surveillance have a tendency of not exercising moral. They will do whatever they want once they are confident that nobody will know. It is the same thing with excess of punishment: if people know something is legal and won't be punished, they won't care about moral.
I tried to ask about the good side of having cameras but he said it was not worth the price of growing a generation of amorals.
I mean this is a great perspective on the failings of the panopticon. Thanks for writing it.
If you think about it, a lot of children’s stories and religions rely on this concept of the panopticon to inspirei moral behavior. Santa knows if you’ve been good or bad. God is always watching, and will reward or punish in the afterlife. Your soul will be reborn according to karma. Et cetera.
So is the use of constant, omniscient surveillance actually new to incentivize moral behavior new? Or have the methods / technology just gotten better?
Both Santa and God are accepted because they are considered as greater than humans, or perfect. Whereas modern day surveillance is done by ordinary humans, which no one would consider as superior. In fact, most people would likely consider humans that perform covert or illegal surveillance as inferior or criminals. So there isn't really an equivalence relationship here. Again, people are willing to accept the judgement of a perfect being watching over them, but never humans.
The superstition of just recompense / Karma is fundamentally different, in that it is , in concept, omniscient, even of your thoughts. Also, it’s justice will be meted out by “fate” so the mind automatically equates outcomes with causes based on your moral compass, establishing a state of perceived equilibrium which you are incentivo used to balance in your favor, as “good things come to good people”.
Surveillance is blind to minor transgressions, supporting the idea that you can slight people and be a crappy human without consequences, and it is also far from omniscient, and can be specifically blind under circumstances that you may control. More so it can be wielded against other people by creating “scenes” that promote a narrative that harms them. It is not an judge of character, but rather of appearances.
Of course the fox is to install a strong moral character in the home, by way of teaching rather than training, but unfortunately many parents give similar attention to their children as they would a beloved pet, so that is not at all something that can be expected.
That's the story I was raised to believe in, but similar to GP's realization, I think it's bullshit too. Plenty of crooks and liars look very happy and I doubt they have problems sleeping at night. Hell, our modern world actually glorifies lying and assholery these days, turning such behavior into respected and well-compensated career paths.
Maybe the aggregate, in their unwillingness to act in favor of good/love/empathy/truth - of virtue - is being doled out their own karmic rash by the frequency of misdeeds. Inaction is just as culpable as inaction - failing to hold corporations, politicians, bullies to account breaks the accords on which civilization was founded, and with the heaving of that foundation is it any wonder more and more people are turning to increasingly extreme methods? And as this all is broken asunder is it any wonder that people think these systems are the problem - and who is to say they aren't? So it should come as no shock when someone who is antithetical to these broken norms is allowed success.
I've watched a lot of people who make precarious moral decisions slide into various modes of turmoil over time. And I'm not exclusion. Just because it isn't evident on the face doesn't mean it isn't working.
Bluey is contemporary entertainment. It's not old enough to be part of culture, which is what GP was talking about. Last century media isn't either. We're talking folk tales and religion here.
Bluey is also one of the handful, perhaps single-digit number of, decent kid shows. Modern children television shows emphasize superstimuli, obnoxious behavior, and/or push merch. I am grateful it exists, because the space of children entertainment is much worse today than it was 30+ years ago.
Early memory when I was 7-8 years old was the kids that were being raised under the 'Santa/God/Cosmic Mushroom' is watching you had a poor moral compass and they'd do really shitty things impulsively. And when caught out would make excuses. Kids raised with a sense of personal decency would do that less and tend to be just mortified when they did something shitty.
> So is the use of constant, omniscient surveillance actually new to incentivize moral behavior new?
A salient difference is that you can see when the camera is there and when it isn't. You can test the fences and see what behavior is punished and not with a quick feedback loop.
If the only thing keeping you from being a sociopath is getting caught on camera, what do you do as soon as you're not on camera?
Exactly, you don't want your children to need surveillance. And in the grand scheme of things even if they misbehave when unsurveilled, who gives a damn? The collective damage of them not learning to say "no" to immoral behaviour because they want to is way bigger than anything the surveillance ever could prevent.
If the US is really about "freedom" why do you try to educate your kids to be on the receiving end of an authoritarian dictatorship?
wild leap from one large, difficult subject to a second one, with no provided evidence, real link or even train of thought.. just "mind salad".. counterproductive to the flow of the reason here
Not the person who posted this, but there is a very, very clear line that can be drawn between school and industrialization, both essentially came into live during the same time. Sometimes the same people who owned the factories where the parents worked advocated for schools to which their kids could go (totally out of the kindness of their hearts ofc). The way school has been structured historically was (and in many parts of the world: is) still stemming from that time.
And this was a society that didn't need free thinkers, but people who did as they were told.
We're a democracy based on hope and love (freedom is bad, acktchually), and our cameras keep us safe. Also, parents wanted education to align better with The Real World, so we added constant surveillance and armed police to the classrooms and replaced a trip to the principal's office with a hearing at the local magistrate.
Only a radical, alt-right, white supremacist-fascist would consider our lawful, peace-keeping panopticon to be "authoritarian" - won't you please think of The Children?
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
> children who grow in over surveillance have a tendency of not exercising moral
Sadly, so do many kids growing up without surveillance.
There are many kids bullied in schools, some of them to the point of suicide. Should we feel happy that their suffering provides to bullies the precious opportunity to reflect on their actions, which they would be deprived of in a safer school environment with cameras?
What's next? Abolish police, so that the adults can learn to live in peace without the external threats? Sounds great in theory, you probably wouldn't want it to happen in your city today.
> which they would be deprived of in a safer school environment with cameras?
My personal experience with bullies is that they will leverage the cameras to make their bullying even more effective. Most bullies work inside the system, and the worst ones are part of they system.
Yep. Laws themselves are not barriers to protect victims, they're guidelines for abusers to follow. They're often written by abusers.
The cameras are abused through "crybullying," where you covertly antagonize someone into punching you, then you go crying to the teacher. The tapes indict your victim.
Personally, the cameras would dissuade me from fighting the bully back or fighting for someone else under the threat of punishment. Bullying in school and the “real world” could be solved by reporting to an authority, but real character development comes from learning to confront one’s aggressor.
Schools have been ~fine without cameras forever though? I don’t think the lack of enforcement around bullying is addressed by cameras, it’s due either to lack of caring by the administration or lack of levers to do much to stop it (kids basically have a right to go to school, it’s very tricky to take that away or to isolate them without taking it away).
I was bullied fairly relentlessly in school. Not sure cameras would've helped (don't even remember if we had them in classrooms), especially the verbal stuff, but I also don't like the idea of always being watched. Honestly, I would rather have the administration be less afraid of lawsuits and covering its own ass with comfortable lies like zero tolerance. Being bullied and then having the vice principal tell you "they were only joking" was the ACTUAL travesty, not any lack of surveillance. Fix the broken authority figures before instituting the Panopticon.
Couldn't agree more. There seems to be some fundamental human dynamic at play here that I don't fully understand. Teachers and school administrators know exactly who they bullies are, yet they will tolerate and even actively enable them. They will punish any victim of bullying who dares to fight back with alacrity.
My personal and unproven theory is that most school staff are bullies/cowards themselves (two sides of the same coin). They have a instinctive fear of punishing bullies and dealing with the blowback from their parents because the odds are good that bully parents will raise bully kids. Victims are often socially awkward and an easy target to punish without much risk to the teacher.
> There seems to be some fundamental human dynamic at play here that I don't fully understand.
The dynamic is laws and standards of evidence in court that make expulsion of problematic kids too costly, for example IDEA 2004.
Video and audio evidence is the only lawsuit proof mechanism to prove the problem child needs to be punished. And this applies in the adult world too, see cops and body/smartphone cameras.
And with these kind of settlement amounts, everyone is going to look to minimize their liability and maximize their plausible deniability, including teachers, taxpayers, admin staff, and the school district itself:
The body cam analogy is a little tricky here though. Bullying is generally a pattern borne out over many months or years, often with the intensity of individual instances only ever rising to the level of minor annoyance.
Someone getting jumped? Video helps a lot. Someone being subtly poked and prodded for months on end who then turns around and punches a bully in the face… who is now expellable at the bully’s parents’ whim even though every individual in the school knows what happened?
> even though every individual in the school knows what happened?
And let's be real here, this includes the teachers. I, and most of my peers, thought our teachers were ignorant to most of the drama in school. I went back a couple of years after I graduated, and learned that teachers generally know exactly what's going on, who is in what relationships, what fights are going on, and yes, who is a bully.
> My personal and unproven theory is that most school staff are bullies/cowards themselves
There’s some wisdom here. What I’ve heard before is that teachers enjoy the feeling of school popularity and the power that comes from it. Perhaps the fact that teachers in Japan also engage in bullying validates this theory.
IMO administrators tend to be craven bureaucrats who fail to back up their frontline workers (teachers, security, or custodial staff) in almost any difficult situation.
Exactly. Kids are already living in an excessively sheltered world. I don’t buy into the “bullying makes you stronger” bullshit but kids should be able to go walk around outside and play in the woods and build their own little tiny societies before they enter the real one.
And in tiny societies, just like in the real one, there will be injustices that need to be managed by some mechanism other than just “don’t go outside, put cameras everywhere.”
> Schools have been ~fine without cameras forever though?
I believe the person you are replying to is emphasizing the "~" in your comment. Yes, it's not like half the kids will commit self harm because they are bullied, but a very small percent will. How do we, as a society, weigh their suffering against those who are being surveiled without ever having done anything to trigger it?
Step 1 is just actually punish and/or separate kids who are known to be bullies. Lack of surveillance or of “knowledge” of who the bullies are isn’t the inhibitor. Not to mention obviously cameras won’t successfully police online/out of school behavior, to which also the solution is not more surveillance.
Teachers, students, administrators, and often parents already know who the bullies are. The question is what to do about it.
> Teachers, students, administrators, and often parents already know who the bullies are. The question is what to do about it.
The school authority figures (teachers and administrators) both know who the bullies are, and enable/cover for them. My theory is these figures often were once the bullies themselves back when they went to school, and they identify with today's bullies. They'll watch and wait until the victim fights back, and then punish the victim using the "Zero Tolerance for fighting" excuse.
I think they like their jobs and would like to keep them and they are constantly under attack by the public at large.
Like do you actually think any kid who was a bully you grew up with went into teaching? There definitely are a few, but just like in the kids’ case, it’s suuuuuper obvious who they are — even as adults — and they are not the majority case in any school system I’ve ever been a part of.
FWIW it is literally legally difficult to do anything. A lot of forms of bullying are not illegal per se and kids — even asshole kids — do have a right to an education.
> FWIW it is literally legally difficult to do anything. A lot of forms of bullying are not illegal per se and kids — even asshole kids — do have a right to an education.
I think it odd how many wrong applications and problematic uses of in loco parentis schools actually use, but when it's dealing with a bully, it's all of a sudden retreating behind "well, legally we can't..."
Knowing you’re always being watched means that you can never figure out who you actually are because you’re continuously putting on a performance for the cameras.
Somewhat but if that God is not drilled on a daily basis it tends to drift out of the mind, as well as the personal view of how God judges you, how God may ignore some small bad acts. A camera’s physical presence is a constant reminder you’re being watched and everything is being recorded, there’s no escape or respite.
Ah, yes! The almighty ever-watching God! You've captured my childhood, complete with a Roman Catholic education. The Internet still hasn't caught up with the RC thought system.
This Godly oversight was no problem (everything fit together pretty well with no one to question theology) until early adolescence, whereupon every time I reached for my joystick I knew my soul would burn in hell forever. I could hardly wait to confess my sins (to wipe my soul clean so, were I to die, I would not be cast into hell forever) and repeat the cycle.
This kept up until college when, in a fit of despair, I abandoned religion and gave up my soul (and religion with it) [thus committing one of the Seven Deadly Sins, despair. - RC theology may be ridiculous when viewed from outside but it's internal logic is very consistent!]
No fun, but given there was no outside influence that had ever led me to question the authority of the Roman Catholic religion, this was for the better.
I'm now at peace, but regret not earlier meeting someone who seriously questioned religion. My moral sense was always strong and stems from good parenting. I would likely be much farther along intellectually and emotionally without the religion.
Today God is still in the sky but he's not destructive or oppressive and pretty much keeps to himself. My childhood beliefs are now chapters in a child's storybook.
It depends on the school but I would argue that public schools are not in the business of instilling morals. Maybe religious schools or boarding schools can instill morals, but a public school is not going to overcome whatever bad influences a child has at home.
On the other hand, public schools can and should take measures to control the specific behaviors that happen inside that school.
Here is the good side, recent article headline, "Shocking video shows special needs school worker slamming autistic, nonverbal toddler to the ground then dangling him upside down"
On the other hand again, an anecdote from my own middle school; one kid shoved another down as they were running through the halls. The person who got shoved fell and broke a tooth. School refused to punish anyone without evidence of wrongdoing (despite the testimony of everyone around at the time). There was a camera in the hallway but conveniently "it was off" and school refused to investigate further.
Seeking justice by apportioning more power to those with the incentive to abuse it does not result in a more just system.
The good side is what? Now we have salient imagery of an extremely rare occurrence so we can breed into our culture more fear of extremely rare occurrences?
There are billions of people on this planet, you can pick any atrocious act and find enough footage to convince a tribe-scale monkey brain that once in a million people event is a Big Problem that we need to be solving.
I could imagine there being special carve outs for kids who are unlikely to know something bad is happening or to report it. Doesn’t mean every child needs more surveillance around them.
Yes, I think this part is incredibly important to understand; it's similar to laws where the penalty is a fine; devastating for many people if they get caught, but for those with wealth, it's just the cost of business to do whatever they want.
Same with the idea of persistent surveillance -- it's only as good/useful as those who control the surveillance. In the case of authorities who are willing to abuse their power, surveillance does not make you more safe with these authorities, it just means that there is surveillance data they control, and it works for them, not not for you unless they decide to allow that.
Recordings get deleted "accidentally" all the time, and for most regulated businesses, at worst it's a small fine and some forms and mandatory training, none of which would make me feel particularly better if the "accidentally deleted" video was the only proof of the authority figures beating me to a pulp.
It's the same reason government backdoors can never be a tool "for the good guys"; once it's there, anyone able to pass a correct secret to the backdoor gets in, regardless of their intent or right to be.
Surveillance doesn't make us safer by default; it is a tool like any other, and it has it's legitimate uses and illegitimate uses. I don't feel safer if a stranger runs at me in an alley wielding a claw hammer just because I know that claw hammers are usually for construction work; I'm very much so aware that while a nail might survive the impact, my flesh and bone will not fare as well. Same with any surveillance -- I do not see how it's making _me_ safer, it's instead making someone else's job easier to monitor me, and I have no idea who that might be or why they're monitoring me.
This isn't to say it's always morally imperative wrong to have some sort of surveillance; I think a closed circuit recording system in a store is maybe frustrating, but I also don't have to go into that particular store I suppose. This does become a problem though once surveillance is everywhere, and even worse, when it's non-secured surveillance tech, so anyone might get at it.
> it's similar to laws where the penalty is a fine; devastating for many people if they get caught, but for those with wealth, it's just the cost of business to do whatever they want.
The purpose of a fine is to put a price on something. Parking on the school lawn is a nuisance, so to do it you have to pay $65. For most people that isn't worth it, but if Richie Rich wants to park on the lawn every day, that's great! Now society has more than $20,000/year to spend on homeless shelters or cancer research or whatever you like.
It works as long as the fine is at least as much as is necessary to compensate society for the nuisance. And if it isn't, you've set the amount of the fine wrong.
But the amount of the fine is the same for everyone because the amount of the nuisance is the same for everyone. You don't get a discount if you have less money because you only get to do it if you're willing to more than compensate society for the cost you're imposing.
The problem with surveillance is entirely different: It's not that powerful people don't suffer the same penalty as everyone else, it's that they excuse themselves from that penalty because the recording is "lost" whenever it's to their advantage. And a technology which is only used by the powerful to oppress is to be destroyed.
Late reply I'm sure you'll never see, but I do not agree with the idea that such a system is a betterment for society given our approaches to prison and arrests.
The law should be consistent for all persons; any punishments should be consistent and equal for the same crimes, while being reasonable punishment. If a rich kid can continue doing something destructive that we all agree is bad, the fact that they pay us $65 each time they do it is not relevant, and it more or less proves my original point; the law was made to prevent the senseless destruction, and just because someone is rich they can do what they want.
One of the big problems of this is that it treats criminal acts as a revenue stream; the point of the law isn't to fill the coffers, it's to keep everyone from just doing whatever they want without consideration for the consequences of their actions. An eye for an eye is great in theory, but is anyone really better off with two half-blind persons? Not to speak of recidivism; in your example, the intended behavior is we don't want people parking anywhere except designated parking spaces; if the penalty is just a fine, then really all it does is commoditize the activity the law is meaning to address. "You can't do this, unless you pay of course"
It's a similar idea to bail and to justice; consider two persons caught with coke, one who is wealthy and one who is not. We have the laws on cocaine because supposedly it's so vile towards society that it must be controlled (this is debatable, but not relevant). But, if someone can afford bail and the fines and walk free within a few hours and another will likely sit in jail for long time and be deprived of their freedom, the punishments aren't really the same in practice, even though on paper they are the same.
These are edge-cases yes, but they're edge-cases that are incredibly common and very impactful and harmful if you can't afford them. Having wealth negatively influences the justice system, and not in a way that is a betterment for society; society might get a booster of 20k as you proposed, but now the school or anyone who Richie Rich wants to bother by parking their car anywhere has no recourse against the action; Richie Rich already "paid" their debt to society quite literally with money, while still doing the stuff that society specifically said "hey stop that"; yes, in real life Richie Rich _might_ get enough instances where someone takes action or maybe the school will get a restraining order, but again, why should they have to? If the laws were agreed upon to generally be best for society, why is it alright to "just pay a fine" and allow the person to continue doing whatever they want? What about the law which is meant to prevent this action? Just because someone has money they should be allowed to violate it?
> It's not that powerful people don't suffer the same penalty as everyone else, it's that they excuse themselves from that penalty because the recording is "lost" whenever it's to their advantage.
I'm not sure how your two sentences can both ring true for you frankly speaking. The penalty of surveillance as I described it is that most people have 0 control over who records what about their lives, who is recording and where and when, etc. And worse, the actors implementing the surveillance are trying to make it _the law that they must have access_, even though there is 0 reason to believe that it will be used for the good of society based on the clearly recorded and documented abuses of this surveillance power by those in authority. If surveillance that you do not control can only harm you, not help you, and if those in power control the surveillance, then no, they do not have the same penalty; they are the adjudicators as to who the surveillance will help because they control it; if they don't want a penalty due to the surveillance of themselves, then there isn't a penalty -- how could there be? Credibility in technical matters only goes so far; let us not forget that footage of a person accused of murder shooting people was thrown out of court because the video was enlarged for viewing purposes, and thus considered "altered", as argued by the Defense;† the courts have very little patience for technological quibbles is the point, as while the statement is technically true, it's not like enlargement algorithms for video are some mystery, and it wasn't even argued that the content's expression and message changed, just that the video had been altered.
It's very scary stuff for me about surveillance and talks of justice, as it's far too easy to get into really spooky and bad situations as they are so many real life edge cases that absolutely are ripe for abuse (and frequently abused), especially by those in positions of authority and especially by the rich. Elon Musk and Donald Trump have frequently called out other for defamation, but openly will espouse any statements factually about just about anyone; Elon called the cave diver a pedophile, the mere accusation of which is enough to cause a ton of trouble for just about anyone. Somehow Elon won that law suit, and I'm not confident that a less rich person would have.
>It works as long as the fine is at least as much as is necessary to compensate society for the nuisance. And if it isn't, you've set the amount of the fine wrong.
I will end the rant that no one will read with this comment, which is the one that triggered me to respond to this: I don't think it's a good idea to commoditize punishments like this. It focuses purely on an if>then understanding of justice and law that only tries to satisfy a code-like logic. I wrote before the law should be applied equally, and I do maintain this; the total punishment as a result of the crime should be equal; if being able to pay to get less punishment overall is possible, then the fine is just a fee that rich people can pay to do what they want. This is not an argument for minimum sentencing guidelines, it is about appropriate responses to the infraction that are consistent and equally impactful; if being poor means that parking on a lawn (regardless of intent) deprives you of freedom because you couldn't pay a fine or bail right away, then the impact of the law for the person without money is greater than that of someone with money.
It similarly ignores intent -- if the person with money intends to continue breaking the law because they can pay it, then society is not made whole by the fines they pay; the behavior the law is intended to prevent and discourage is still happening, and increasing the fine equally for everyone just makes the impact for those without wealth even worse, and the gap between the punishments received only grows bigger.
Wealth should not allow you to skirt the law or punishment -- I understand that's quite idealistic and I have no doubts that we will not see this as a reality in some time; but let's not pretend that such a system is really a benefit. To use a classic scare tactic, is it really fair that a particularly bad person in bad circles can do some egregiously horrible, but avoids serious punishment because they happen to know a lot of bad people and can plea bargain while anyone else who does the same action would get the full force of the justice system bearing down on them? We would agree the two crimes are equally egregious I think, but we'd differ on whether the information given as part of the plea bargain is equal to the punishment the other person received, and I would not call the plea bargain in support of justice so much as just a quick way to get out of jail that actually encourages more bad behavior from the individual -- after all, the only reason they got a plea bargain is because they did enough illegal/bad stuff with other people that they have a treasure trove of knowledge. I sincerely question if the justice applied in such a situation will prevent the person from doing such activities again, or if they'll be emboldened to realize how much power they have to barter, and want to get more so they can get out even faster next time.
I strongly urge you to revisit your thoughts on justice, as the edge case failures are a matter of life and death sometimes, of having a normal life or being in prison for the rest of your days because you could't afford the same fines/fees/lawyers as someone else guilty of the same crime. And the edge cases are very common to the point that depending on who you are, it's almost expected that you will be targeted by police.
Justice cannot exist in such a system via fines; that's not justice, that's a class system enforced by the state, who will use violence to enforce it if required. I cannot find a favorable interpretation of such a system, even if it at first blush appears to be beneficial.
That's the beauty of widespread surveillance and easy bulk storage - there's no reason to give any of the surveilled parties the power to control the data. Camera records the footage and sends it to a centralized storage facility, where it is automatically deleted after 5 years or some other length of time. As long as there's enough storage space for the relevant time frame's worth of footage, there's no reason any person needs to be able to delete it. If it's on a server hundreds of miles away what can some petty bureaucrat do even if they wanted to?
I mean, it's a nice thought, but it does not change the situation I described. The persons with the power of authority determine whether or not the surveillance data can be accessed.
In the example I mentioned where the only footage of violence against me by persons is controlled by the persons themselves, what does it matter if it gets sent to S3 with immutability for 10 years? I still can't get that data if they don't want me to, in some countries the legal discovery process might _say_ all parties in a legal dispute must comply with the discovery process, but if one of the parties states they simply don't have the data, the courts can't do much of anything in such cases.
(The following statement is not to decry encryption, but more just to show that "deletion" is just an example there are many ways to "lose" such surveillance)
What if instead of deleting, we said "could not accesses, whoopsiekittens"? Let's say they do send the data to a centralized storage center, and naturally, they're encrypting all the data they send as per best practices? What exactly would I or anyone in my situation be able to do if the company "lost" the encryption key? Or they retrieve the data, muck a bit with the file to make it unreadable, and then just say "welp, guess just bad luck here"?
Unless it's _all open and all accessible_, it just means that those with the surveillance data have the power to use it however they want. Their excuses may be disprovable over time, but how long do you think most reasonable people would believe me if I tried to convince them that every excuse created was an intentional deception? How could I even prove it in most cases?
I am not advocating for non-stop surveillance and full open access to that surveillance to be clear; I have not thought what a system like that would look like and I am not able to say how it could work "for everyone", nor do I think it really could.
That's not the point, the point is instead that no matter how it's stored, unless everyone has equal access to it, it's still is surveillance that only those who control the surveillance data can use, regardless of what they decide to use it for. Body Cams for police in the US are a perfect example of this -- theoretically, they're for the public to use and for accountability with police, but since the police control the body cam footage and even get to decide that they don't _need_ the body cams at times, it's effectively surveillance that works for them when they want it to, and can be hidden when it works against them.
> I mean, it's a nice thought, but it does not change the situation I described. The persons with the power of authority determine whether or not the surveillance data can be accessed.
That is why you (and all the kids) wear a 360 degree camera connected to a mobile network that is backing up to a remote site you control.
Just like you want your own dashcam in the car to have the option to show your side in the event of a collision.
Or you start recording on your phone once you get pulled over by the cops.
A late reply you'll probably never see, but while in theory that works, keep in mind that (at least for US Court systems), there is an evidentiary process that must be satisfied before any of that will be considered. The police have repeatedly been documented outright beating and murdering people with dozens of witnesses and even their own body camera footage -- very few have been punished in a meaningful way.
None of what you mentioned really changes anything about my statement -- if the court date for my arrest where I was brutally beaten by officers for no reason is 30 days out, it doesn't matter that I got a video on my iPhone and uploaded it to whatever social media -- I'm still in jail, I still got the crap beat out of me, it's unclear if the video will even be accepted as evidence, the police video footage will also be considered as will their testimony.
Again, it's not about the actual video files, its about the concept of what surveillance can do, who actually is empowered by it, and who is surveilling who; the fact that there are continued policy brutality/abuse incidents despite the ever-present surveillance from all things is pretty supportive of what I'm intending to convey; they are surveilled for sure, but because they have the power/are protected by those who control the surveillance, they act with impunity because they _know that the surveillance works for them_; that is the point, not that you _can_ surveil someone if you want.
1. Lost and found stations at events. People find stuff, people nearby don't claim it and often don't care if it's taken, but the finder still makes the effort to give it to lost and found or staff. Everytime I've done this, there've been a lot of unclaimed items. Each of those is evidence of, if not altruism, at least morality.
2. The vast majority of people don't shoplift, even at stores that put goods out front with no employees watching.
3. Charities, soup kitchens, anonymous donors.
We should be careful to not mistake cynicism as wisdom.
Counter-counterpoint(?): the difference between high trust society and a low trust society is not the number of 'bad' people, but the number of apathetic people when they witness the actions of the bad actors and do nothing.
> To me, this is just how people tend to behave, no matter their age.
One of my favourite studies is just random virtue testing of strangers. Will they return lost property? It's easy, cheap, and frequently replicated.
The researchers "lose" a bunch of fairly typical wallets in discreet-but-obvious places, with some cash inside. The people who find the wallet have the opportunity to take the cash in the wallet, or just the whole wallet.
In most countries, the majority of wallets are returned to their owners, with the cash intact. In countries like Sweden or Japan, you can reasonably expect your wallet to be returned - rates are over 80%.
Most people are good. Or at least, they don't want to be a thief. Given the opportunity to get away with stealing a small amount of money, most people opt to go out of their way, even if it's just a few minutes of their time, to help the person get their wallet back.
sorry but your friend's argument is easily disproven by example. look no further than any inner city school, most of which do not have cameras everywhere.
My children are minors. They need their time curated. I would rather instruction not have ANY access to the internet (I'm fine with using computers as a tool). I see zero legitimate reason to access the internet to learn a predefined curriculum.
Your moral problem you pose, has no bearing on the legitimate needs of education. I would encurage reading "The Power of Culture" by Birbalsingh who runs a school in the UK that topped the "Progress 8" charts recently. That school works, the reason is they truly teach and they don't give in to these silly "moral" arguments. The most moral thing a parent or teacher can do is to ensure students learn so they are prepared for the future. End of story.
>The most moral thing a parent or teacher can do is to ensure students learn so they are prepared for the future
How much of what students learn in school actually helps them in future? Personally the only thing I learned in high school that I ever actually use is mathematics. I didn't learn anything about how to manage my finances, how to handle emotionally challenging situations, how the economy works, how to start a business, how to avoid toxic people/relationships, how to drive a car, how to eat healthy, how to exercise with good form, how to pay (or minimise) taxes, how to invest, how to save money, how to cook healthy food, how to sell/market products or myself, how to analyse ethical issues from multiple perspectives/philosophies, how to negotiate, how to wear a tie. The vast majority of things that actually contribute to someone having a healthy, happy and productive life are not taught in schools (or at least the schools I'm familiar with), although they certainly could be.
Do you have kids? I once felt as you, that school was pointless and uninformative, but watching my kids develop key skills that we all take for granted from the focused instruction and practice provided to them by the public K-12 program changed my mind. I've been able to spend my time with them teaching those topics you laid out (some of which are quite opinionated) and not drilling the basics.
In my experience, there is no one definition of moral. Your own anecdote is a great example of this. Personally, I find it disgusting because it only applies to a "person", which as far as I understand, means a human.
Edit: wow, the human superiority crowd doesn't like my comment
It's not a useful challenge. Sure, morals are relative to particular brain architecture and causal history of a particular kind of monkeys on a particular ball of dirt spinning in space. But those particular monkeys are also the entire scope of concern. Your objection will become relevant once we build human-level AIs or meet and start mixing with some space aliens.
I agree with the headline, but for a very different reason:
Kid's online activities are criminalized when schools snoop and hand that information over to the school resource officer.
I don't ever want a visit to the wrong website to cause my family to be sucked into the legal system. So, I provide my kids hardware, and refuse to allow spyware to be installed and that includes browser extensions. Every year I have at least one of the three schools my kids are at try to force us to let them install something, and they find out:
0. The spyware they are using is creating a lot of network traffic to unexpected (and often unwanted) places and is much more intrusive than parents are led to believe.
1. Government, and that would be a public school, does not have legal right to surveil my kids without a search warrant.
2. They have no right to install stuff on a computer they do not own.
3. Public schools cannot deny education to my kids because we opted out of surveillance.
The final resolution is usually the district's lawyer telling the head of IT they have to stand down on the issue.
Do schools try to mandate installation on personal devices? This extends beyond school supplied devices? Do they have any way to actually enforce compliance if so?
I would never install any software from the schools on my kids device. Never. That doesn’t mean I don’t surveil her use - I most certainly do, and she has no privacy. But she also needs no secrecy from me, I am her protector but not her manager.
I’ve decided to forgo the public school system for many reasons despite being a huge advocate of public education. It’s become a battle ground of control by bureaucrats and ideologues, with a subtext of a police state and pre-criminalization.
But as such I’d love to hear anecdotal stories since I’m unaware of the experiences folks are having.
I’ve used the internet for nearly 40 years, and I know exactly what happens and what I was in danger of myself without someone guiding me. The point isn’t to hover over her, and I don’t monitor everything she does. But I’m aware of what she’s into and what she’s doing. That’s my job as a parent. I’m legally and morally responsible for what she does and what happens to her. That’s the burden of being a parent. The flip side is to allow her to do as pleases as long as it’s not dangerous, and I don’t interfere in her life.
What’s worse are parents who either allow their kids unfettered access to the internet, which is awash in dark patterns designed to warp and exploit children for profit, and predators seeking to exploit children for pleasure. Their kids are being psychologically manipulated to their detriment everywhere.
Likewise, the overbearing parents that control all consumption aren’t great. But worse of all is the parent who allows no access.
My job as I see it with respect to the internet is to teach my daughter how to resist the pervasive manipulation and inoculate her against meme and dark patterns now. Letting her be manipulated without guidance now is a bad idea, and letting her build no facility or competence until she’s an adult is worse.
I’d rather not do this, I agree in some sense, but it’s just not the way the world works and and parenting is often about doing what is necessary even though it’s not your preference. That includes disciplining, etc etc, and doing all the things you thought you never would do as a parent but realize why parents do it when it’s your turn.
I sympathize with your situation, and I appreciate that you're trying to be a cool parent who accepts your daughter unconditionally for who she is, but I wonder if it's even possible to know where the limits are on that, or how much she feels that way. Personally, I grew up in a really supportive family, but I still had a whole lot of hangups as a teenager that meant I didn't always want my parents to see what I was doing or looking into on the internet. Some of those private interests turned into major parts of who I am, and I don't really want to imagine the world where I had to worry about what my parents saw.
Would it have been better if I'd talked these things out with my parents? Maybe, but would I have? Or would I have just self-censored my dreams rather than face that conflict?
I guess maybe as a middle ground, maybe keep watching while she's young but pull back as she gets older?
From my experience, kids with helicopter parents never achieve their true potential in life. Trust your own kids, you'll find that they're more capable than you think.
Trust but verify. The art of parenting is giving them freedom within guardrails. The internet is about as safe as an intellectual wood chipper, very useful but can chew you up. While I would let my kid use a wood chipper, I will definitely supervise and ensure she’s wearing goggles and gloves, no matter how much I trust her.
I’d also note that as a male, I assume, gaming culture and chat culture is a lot safer. For females, surely you’ve noticed it’s not quite the same experience. This is probably the biggest tragedy of online culture, the extreme overt misogyny and aggressive sexualization of any girl that dares let her gender be discovered. Girls are broadly predated upon, and the boys parents never believe Johny could do that until you confront them with the logs. Bullying, sextortion, etc, are endemic and rampant. If you’ve not got direct experience with a young girl using these things I’d withhold judgement until you do.
And honestly it’s a bit hard to take parenting advice on hacker news given by non parents, no offense meant.
This is interesting, I'm surprised you can push back on this. Usually even if it's not legal people will just blindly force the issue because they don't fully understand and can't be told otherwise.
Has anyone attempted to force you to allow your kids to use a school laptop full of spyware?
Well you're a hero for fighting back against this stuff. Keep it up.
I remember being in grade school. Kids do weird shit and it's easy for adults to wildly misinterpret their actions resulting in absolutely insane reactions and all hell breaking loose for parents.
All that sounds great, but how do you actually assert those things without your child missing out on their classes?
We got enrolled this year and all the kids apparently get chromebooks with a bunch of software pre-installed. I mentioned to the school I would rather just provide laptops for them, and they were not really open to that, legal or no. Apparently the kids have been using them everyday, so I'm glad, on one hand, I didn't push the issue and let the kids get behind because of my pet issue, but on the other hand I clearly got steam rolled by the system.
Only consolation I got was links to all their softwares' individual privacy policies they signed with the school in relation to the kids usage and data. Feels a bit like malicious compliance (reading one of those is a strain, reading one for every single piece of software they use in the year is quite a mental burden).
Is #1 legally true in the US the way the courts apply the in loco parentis doctrine in Horton v. Goosecreek Independent School District and Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District? I understand this to be your belief but my question is: does the legal apparatus actually back this up?
I've had to deal with this over the past six years with five kids in school and every time they back off. Honestly, I would love to litigate this one (the bill will suck), but there comes a point where we are no longer taking care of kids and are in the zone of policing without a badge.
Also, even if I lose point #0, I think 1-3 are good enough.
I never claimed it didn't. You can scoff at it but applied law has much more material implication compared to an individuals interpretation of the constitution. You're free to tell a judge they're wrong but it doesn't work very well in practice.
What exactly does pushing back on this issue look like? What are the conversations you need to have along the way? Did you ever seek legal guidance, or were in a position where legal counsel would have been useful?
It usually starts with an email, and is resolved pretty quickly when these boxes are checked:
[ ] We are supplying the hardware.
[ ] We wish to protect our kids and our own rights. Letting the school surveil my home network or office (when the kids are doing homework there) is a no-go.
[ ] Parents are not wingnuts (helps that I'm a developer and business owner and my wife is a teacher at another district) and can afford to lawyer up.
I've only had to have a lawyer get involved once, and that was a 15 minute call with the school district's attorney. I think the conversation was pretty much, "is he serious about this?" "Yes. I'm on retainer."
Thank you for actually protecting our kids and setting a president for all. Do you have any involvement with PTA or other public forums where these issues are discussed before being implemented?
If I have learned anything in the last 20 years, it's that "The Chilling Effect" is very real. We're building nothing but a culture of fear. People come to expect and even desire to be watched.
A couple years ago, they installed cameras in our office ostensibly to "lock the doors in case of a gunman" shortly after a gunman had broken into a nearby office building. For that to even be remotely possible though, someone literally has to be constantly watching those cameras and the gunman has to be clearly brandishing the weapon. It's at best security theater and no one is watching, and at worst a horrible privacy violation. I see no upside. Talking to coworkers I was seemingly the only one with any concerns, and it feels like I'm taking crazy pills.
I just installed a dash cam after someone backed into me and drove off. My girlfriend couldn't stand it, so I had to turn audio recording off. Even with that and the camera only facing outward, she said she was painfully aware of its presence.
My 9 year old recently said "why are there only cameras outside the school. They should also put them in classrooms for when the teacher has to go to the bathroom"
Mainland China is already trialing that. They have classroom cameras pointed at students, with some sort of primitive ML that classifies their "attentiveness level" and generates reports.
- "Here's how it works. Every 30 seconds, three cameras installed in the front of the room scan each student's face to determine their expression: surprised, sad, antipathy, angry, happy, afraid, or neutral."
- "The cameras also record each student's actions throughout the class, noting whether they are reading, listening, writing, standing up, raising hands, or leaning on the desk."
- "Smart eye then notifies the teacher in real-time if it notices that a student appears distracted. The teacher can also view a report at the end of the class that provides an average of each student's expressions."
- [embedded tweet] "What else can surveillance cameras do in classroom other than exam supervision? High school in #Hangzhou uses camera to identify students facial expression for class performance analysis and improvement pic.twitter.com/bXolAE7Ev8 — People's Daily,China (@PDChina) May 16, 2018"
The United States already did this as well in 2010, and the spying extended into the home.
> Michael and Holly Robbins of Penn Valley, Pa., said they first found out about the alleged spying last November after their son Blake was accused by a Harriton High School official of "improper behavior in his home" and shown a photograph taken by his laptop.
> An assistant principal at Harriton later confirmed that the district could remotely activate the webcam in students' laptops. "Michael Robbins thereafter verified, through [Assistant Principal] Ms. Matsko, that the school district in fact has the ability to remotely activate the webcam contained in a student's personal laptop computer issued by the school district at any time it chose and to view and capture whatever images were in front of the webcam, all without the knowledge, permission or authorization of any persons then and there using the laptop computer," the lawsuit stated.
This sounds like an issue at your child’s school, more than an argument for surveillance.
A teacher should never leave the classroom unattended with students inside. What’s happening when the teacher leaves that’s making your child wish there were cameras?
Speaking as an educator myself, I’d be having a conversation with the principal. Something’s not right there.
> A teacher should never leave the classroom unattended with students inside.
maybe things have changed a lot since I was in grade school, but this was surprising to read. I'd expect that a teacher should only rarely leave during class, because it would be a waste of class time, but beyond that I don't see why it's so serious. when I was in school, the class would often fill up with students before the teacher was present. unless the teacher was teaching several periods in the same room back-to-back, there would always be at least a few students arriving before the teacher. is that not a thing these days?
For example, the evidence in GP’s post is that the child wishes an adult could see what happens when the teacher leaves the room. This sounds like a kid telling their parent about a problem at school, not a kid idly musing about surveillance.
I think the kids haven’t changed, it’s parents and admin. Setting aside whether we think teachers should be able to leave, the fact of the matter is that it’s a massive liability.
The teacher is responsible for the care of the children under their charge. Probably you would be understanding, but all it takes is one terrible moment, and one parent screaming to the superintendent that the teacher negligently left little Timmy unsupervised to cause a huge problem for the teacher and school admin.
Anyway, it’s very easy to get someone to cover your class for five minutes while you make copies or take a leak.
This attitude is so weird to me and entirely different from when I was in school. Students were treated as miniature adults, not some kind of hospital patient. If the teacher needed to run a quick errand, make copies, etc. it wasn’t a big deal.
Female teachers have complained about UTIs and bladder infections from having to hold it for long periods of time. Students can ask for a hall pass, but adults aren't extended that opportunity.
Given that when teachers leave the room, students start parkouring off of furniture or gang-raping each other (and uploading it to social media), that's unlikely to change anytime soon.
I didn't intend to minimize the child's concern from GGP's post, I remember all the terrible things that children are capable of. but I remember those things happening in the hallways, bathrooms, and locker rooms more than in the actual classroom. never leaving the room during class seems kinda arbitrary when there are so many opportunities for the students to harm each other.
a better way of asking my question might have been: is there something special about never leaving the classroom specifically, or has the expectation evolved to "students will absolutely never be unsupervised during school hours"? given that teachers also need time to physically move between their office, the cafeteria, bathroom, and classroom, this seems hard to achieve.
> all it takes is one terrible moment, and one parent screaming to the superintendent that the teacher negligently left little Timmy unsupervised to cause a huge problem for the teacher and school admin.
And that is a big part of the problem. In the saner times, decades ago, the superintendent would tell such parent to GTFO, and that would be the end of it. It worked out well, because adults were more cooperative; now, the parent-school relationship seems fully antagonistic. These days, a single crazy or malicious parent can terrorize the entire school - and a big reason for cameras and student surveillance is thus to give the school some means to defend itself and the other kids.
> A teacher should never leave the classroom unattended with students inside.
I struggle to even imagine your school. My Canadian teachers routinely left to photocopy work, and that's just the one that stuck out when thinking of examples. Yes, in elementary school too. No, not that long ago. All my schooling was after the year 2000.
> We are talking about students here, not criminals.
It's becoming difficult to distinguish the two. A population with limited rights, compelled by law to be confined to a building[1] every day, under armed guard, often against their will, ostensibly for their own good, subject to rules they do not have a say in, their fate in the hands of callous and sometimes cruel authority figures.
You’re not crazy. You’re making valid observations about the limitations and negative psychological effects of surveillance. There’s an interesting Æon Flux episode about it.
I personally expect not an iota of privacy in the workplace already, so even the chance of someone spotting something on the camera is an improvement over where I consider things to be.
The article is a mess, mixing surveillance, filtering and generative AI.
In fact, their main argument about potential harm is that filtering makes it hard to find information.
They also say that surveillance is used to discipline kids (obviously, that's what surveillance is for). And that students are using ChatGPT for their homework (sure but that's another topic). Then they throw in LGBTQ+ and children with disabilities again without much coherence.
There are links to other article but none of them are about how school surveillance is harming kids. Where are the studies? The numbers?
Overall poor article that doesn't really help its cause.
Disabled kids makes some sense, but if we're going to excuse such poor judgment then maybe they shouldn't be allowed on the internet in the first place. Give them a copy of Encarta.
As for the LGBTQ stuff, it's just histrionics. They never go into detail for a reason; people react to "it causes harm" without evidence all the same. Then you find out it's kids reading gay erotica on AO3 during school ohours. Then the parent is informed and it becomes a traumatic outing. And the "harm" is all the school's fault.
"It's not my fault for doing it, it's your fault for snitching."
Ironic about the other reply to your post - generally studies here are totally dismissed or not required - it’s supposed to be “common sense” when it comes to “the children”.
It’s so strange how whenever things are most important we tend to totally throw out scientific rigor. See SF abolishing math with zero studies or the way we construct school buildings with zero architectural appeal or the way schoolbooks are procured.
Methodology is a thing for nerds to use to build airplanes - at least that’s the attitude I get when asking other parents / teachers about data to back up their “overhauls”.
It's lack of trust. I too tend to be dismissive by default when it comes to school decisions backed by "studies", because I don't trust an average social science study, I definitely don't trust those that become trendy, and I don't trust school administration to be able to comprehend even a valid study, much less implement it fully in a hostile political and parents/school relationship environment.
Hard sciences are easy, soft sciences are difficult. When you follow a bogus physics study and fuck up your airplane design, your mistake will be immediately apparent. When you follow a bogus social sciences study and fuck up the K12 curriculum, your mistake might be apparent after you retire, if it'll ever become apparent at all.
Agreed. Surprised this is not top comment. While the subject matter provides so much to explore, the article lazily grows scope to find "arguments" but fails to be clear.
> 19% of students at schools that use filtering technology say they were even aware of students who were “outed” for LGBTQ+ as a result of the filtering.
> Around two-thirds of teachers surveyed said they’d seen students disciplined at school as a result of AI-powered monitoring software. Shockingly, 38% of teachers said they were even aware of a student who was contacted by law enforcement as a result of the monitoring.
So US schools are becoming bigoted panopticon prisons for real, yet kids still can't be kept safe from getting shot there? I don't know what that does to a child, but I'm sure it can't be good.
> 19% of students at schools that use filtering technology say they were even aware of students who were “outed” for LGBTQ+ as a result of the filtering.
I am very skeptical this 19% should be taken at face value.
Eh, idk about the percentage, but the idea sounds plausible to me.
Teenagers find dark corners to make out in like water finds a crack. It’s not hard to imagine an automated system flagging contact between students as potentially inappropriate.
Why? This is about students hearing about such case. Rumors go around fast and far. One kid like that may easily mean good half of the school heard about the situation.
The Moms for Liberty agenda is to abolish public schools because public schools undermine their ideology. Anything that damages public schools advances their agenda. Free public education was always a socialist conspiracy.
Going to school in the 2000s, I feel like I was a part of the last generation that will "get away with stuff." Nothing terrible, just the typical shenanigans that teenagers get up to and have gotten up to since the beginning of time. Half the school would have been expelled and marked for life if they acted that way today.
Not that I go around bragging about it but my introduction to adult erotica of various sorts was through a school computer connected to the internet. I was eventually caught after 4 years, and the consequence was my access was turned off. No one told my parents, no disciplinary issues, no police, nothing. Not the best judgement in my life, but the consequences were appropriate. Now I can’t imagine how it would have gone.
From experience of having kids at school for the last 20 years, they are little enclaves for authoritarian cults. Now we invented software and technology to enable this further.
All that needs to come along is a matching political ideology and there’ll be a fresh supply of adherents ready to roll.
We learned this from Soviet Russia: it doesn't really matter what you're looking for, if people know they're being watched, they develop pathologies and complexes around that which stunt their development and actualization. Kids are people too.
Meanwhile the homeschooling revolution continues. Few people realize what an absolute state of free fall American public schools are entering. You know all those annoying “Karens” who show up to the school board and PTA, who volunteer for the clubs, and generally act as a forcing function that keeps educational quality at least adequate? Yeah they’re pulling their kids to homeschool in record numbers, I mean millions. Meanwhile the public schools are left with the least engaged parents. And anyone who has ever talked to a teacher knows how vitally important parental engagement is for educational outcomes.
127.0.0.1 gizmodo.com # G/O media
127.0.0.1 kotaku.com # G/O media
127.0.0.1 jalopnik.com # G/O media
127.0.0.1 jezebel.com # G/O media
127.0.0.1 qz.com # G/O media
> On June 29, 2023, G/O Media decided to implement artificial intelligence-generated content on its websites, in a move similar to BuzzFeed and CNET, as a "modest test". The move sparked backlash from GMG Union members, citing AI's track record of false statements and plagiarism from its training data.
No need for politically motivated, time wasting, AI generated bullshit.
I left the Onion unblocked because it's the only one that's honest about it being fake.
Tbh, that’s only true for some people depending on their learning style. I never found notes helpful. I found virtual aids helpful, as I focused on listening and imagining questions and the topic in class rather than transcription of the words. The virtual aids provided the later reference material, which was much more useful since I had focused on understanding vs rote retention of language.
However some people definitely find note taking to help. But those people definitely seem to see a homogenous world and are fairly forceful in insisting their way works for everyone.
> Though school administrators will argue these tools are necessary to ensure kids’ safety online, newly released data shared with Gizmodo highlights numerous privacy concerns and unintended consequences caused by their rapid deployment
> newly released data shared
I imagine a monotonous voice with no tenses on words when I read this. why would I need data to know that it's actually indeed perfectly safe for a kid to use the internet (or the previous equivalents like read books or listen to music). that's not to say i'm not also scoffing at the elephant in the room
This is BS. As someone with several kids who use chromebooks, it became much better for the kids when more active monitoring and blocking came in. Just as a practical basis, they were less likely to get distracted or wander into areas where they shouldn't, when they shouldn't.
Okay, so if it blocks something that is potentially useful? Don't care. At school they should be learning the curriculum presented by the teacher. Want to learn something specific? Go to the library or do it at home.
Seriously. This article is extremely messed up and weak.
It's one thing, and I agree with you, to block porn, social media, and other inappropriate sites on school computers. My school library didn't have Playboy or Penthouse magazines available, and though I think the public library maybe carried Playboy, it was not available to minors.
It's another matter to actively monitor what students are doing, or writing/communicating to each other, and reporting back to teachers/administrators. That's an invasion of privacy and enables worse. There have been cases where weirdo administrators were activating cameras on school computers while the computers were away from school in the students' homes, bedrooms, etc.
Teacher here (high school CS). The article has its issues, but the content filtering is naive and overly-broad, just like it says. Here are some actual examples in my district:
- A tool for converting Scratch programs to portable webpages was blocked as "shareware".
- A reference page about the use of SSSP algorithms in game development was blocked under the category "games".
- Whiteboard apps are sometimes blocked as "insufficient content".
- Pages about infosec topics like hashcat are blocked under the category (you guessed it) "hacking".
- Pages with the Minecraft source code (which I use in my AP Java class) are often blocked, so I have to spend extra time converting them to PDFs instead of just pasting the links into my lesson plans.
- Github was blocked until enough CS teachers in the district pushed back.
Issues like this cost me time which I don't have enough of as it is. Since the students just find games that aren't blocked, I'd rather have the ability to access all pages (except adult content) and give consequences to off-task students as needed.
Thank God I went to school in the 70s and 80s. Not only were there fewer online distractions, but there was a greater expectation of independence and responsibility.
In the 80s a bully broke my friend's arm and only failed to break mine because of a thick coat. Teachers were busy chatting it up and didn't believe he was truly hurt. I however left a mark on the bully when I bit him. My friend suffered in pain the rest of the school day. I got a stern talking to. AFAIK the bully was treated as a victim, even after my friend came back the next day in a cast.
Also got to witness a classmate getting spanked on his bare ass by a teacher.
The 80s weren't so great for safety in school.
Not sure if indoor cameras are the answer, though I wouldn't mind if they tried at my kid's school.
I chose a daycare because they have cameras in every room and offer streaming video.
I am not confident that there exists enough funding for enough staffing to properly monitor teachers, nor do they get paid especially well to attract the best candidates. I see cameras as an inevitability, and if I were a teacher, I would want them for my own liability.
They weren't (in ways that are different than now), but virtually all of us survived, and none of us were permanently mentally scarred by perpetual surveillance.
If your kids don't learn any self-control now, when they're finally 18 or whatever and free of parental control they'll go nuts. It's no wonder so many US college kids have serious alcohol problems.
I just got into university and they tell you to install a root certificate authority to connect to the network. Literally allows them to MITM HTTPS traffic without causing SSL warnings
I have three kids. I think cameras in the classroom that can give parents a view into what's going on is a great thing. Especially in classrooms with children who have disabilities. But surveilling them on their phones, putting cameras in the bathroom, that's a step too far.
I saw a video yesterday about some AWS conference that had an interesting insight that I feel should apply here as well.
"If you’re going to attend a talk, bias for Chalk Talks. Those are not recorded and they’re given by experts, many of whom work at AWS. And because it’s not recorded, they don’t feel the all-seeing eye humorless AWS PR and legal review on them quite as strongly, so they’re going to be a lot more direct about what they’re trying to get across. And some of the people you meet are just fantastic."
So the idea is that by the mere act of recording (or publishing, even if it's limited) you limit the quality and candor, because people know that everything can and will be misunderstood.
Did you have this growing up? If not, would you rather your parents did see everything you did in school too?
I didn't. I didn't even have helicopter parents, but I greatly appreciated not feeling watched by them at home and school (~90% of my life at that age). I couldn't have imagined how terrible that would be if they could see everything
i would not want other parents to be able to see what my kids are doing in school. despite the best intentions some actions are going to be miss-interpreted and i fear parents will look at how much attention the teacher is giving to their child compared to others. this will only encourage the few karen-type parents out there to make a noise in detriment to everyone else who don't care or don't have the time to watch.
parents should stay out of the classroom and trust the teachers to do their work.
Not never, but typically, yes. It's hard to have a functioning society otherwise.
(And yes, the police thing isn't a universal problem, it's an American problem. Most of the Western world manages to function just fine without treating law enforcement as an occupation force.)
Would someone knowledgable explain the mechanisms by which teachers are held accountable for their actions in their classrooms, and how parents and voters have access to that mechanism of accountability?
Cameras in classrooms seem like they would be a key part of that process.
The trick to getting better teachers in the US isn't more accountability---administrators and school boards are already so fearful of parents that standards for students have dropped to historic lows to accomodate the most unprepared students and the parents backing them.
Look at the countries with star education systems like Japan, Korea, China, Singapore and you'll see a) a culture of respect for teachers and b) high teacher salaries.
In the US teachers are treated and paid like service employees (not well), parents carry "the customer is always right" attitude, and teachers are expected to parent students who receive no behavioral reinforcement at home. In the countries with star education systems parents are ashamed of disobedient and underperforming students and reinforce the goals of the school at home.
You won't get better teachers until you get better parents and a culture that values education.
Sorry, I was asking about accountability, not performance. The purpose of my question was not in regards to how to produce better teachers; rather, trying to understand how problematic teachers are discovered and held accountable for staying in the role past the time when it is healthy and safe for the children in the classroom.
Eyewitness testimony might be less valuable than we intuit, but I'm not sure where this puts us in this conversation. Should we just surveil everywhere?
It looks like that is where we are headed. Once the cost of storage and cameras is lower than the cost of litigation, it becomes a simple money saving measure.
yea, but they thru in the 'disproportionately impacting the <insert non-white- male group of your choice>' - so that is really all that is needed these days to qualifies as journalism.
Small sample size and undocumented sampling methods. Also this message brought to you in part by Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, and Apple [1] - somehow I don't think they're against the surveillance part. Catchy title though!
Confusing correlation and causality is probably the most effective form of viral propaganda. Most people don't know what causality is and even when they do they can't easily spot when it's proven or inverted.
For example in this article, let's take the numbers and statements that provide at face value. The article claims: there is a rising number of LGBT+ individuals being outed because of technology. The claim of course carries forward the lie that LGBT+ has always existed naturally in the same proportions over time and therefore concludes that the rise of outings must be because of the technology. No need to consider any other possibilities because the article doesn't even make it sound like there's any doubt. Propaganda payload successfully delivered.
The claims that LGBT+ individuals are being targeted specifically is absurd in any case, because schools in the Western world have been force feeding the LGBT+ agenda with vigor as of late.
It was then explained to me that children who grow in over surveillance have a tendency of not exercising moral. They will do whatever they want once they are confident that nobody will know. It is the same thing with excess of punishment: if people know something is legal and won't be punished, they won't care about moral.
I tried to ask about the good side of having cameras but he said it was not worth the price of growing a generation of amorals.