Texas schools punish students who refuse to be tracked with microchips

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linda22003

I'm hardly a "mark of the beast" type as mentioned in the article, but this is too Big Brother for me.

---

I know what you mean.


I'm saving my "mark of the beast" freakout for my employer, if the state ever starts requiring that we have RIFD chips (either in id cards or implants) so they can track our movements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NJCardFan

The above quotation is not ambiguous.

---

How do you figure that the Fourth Amendment is applicable to this situation? The child is in custody of the state at the time the ID card is being monitored, is he not? How is that different from making you wear an ID while you are in the prison complex or transporting prison personnel or property?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noonwitch

It's amazing we all turned out pretty well.

---

Except for that whole voting for Obama thing. :evil-grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novaheart

How do you figure that the Fourth Amendment is applicable to this situation? The child is in custody of the state at the time the ID card is being monitored, is he not? How is that different from making you wear an ID while you are in the prison complex or transporting prison personnel or property?

---

Equating public schools with prison? Don't let the teachers' unions hear that.

A parent would have the right to monitor a child's movement this way, and the schools have a limited authority to act in loco parentis, so the real issue is whether the parents of the kids consented to the monitoring. If they did, then there is no issue. If they object, then there is a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novaheart

How do you figure that the Fourth Amendment is applicable to this situation? The child is in custody of the state at the time the ID card is being monitored, is he not? How is that different from making you wear an ID while you are in the prison complex or transporting prison personnel or property?

---

Yeah, your ilk just loves kids in state custody. Sorry, but kids don't give up their constitutional rights when they step onto school property. The fact that you chose to compare schools to prisons proves that you do not grasp that simple fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hubie

Yeah, your ilk just loves kids in state custody. Sorry, but kids don't give up their constitutional rights when they step onto school property. The fact that you chose to compare schools to prisons proves that you do not grasp that simple fact.

---

There are thousands of children out there who compare schools to prisons, although probably more deliberately than Nova did.

I think Nova's point is one of the school being responsible for the kids while they are on school property, and compared it to the way the state is responsible for prisoners in their custody. Where he is wrong is that a school does not have custody of the children in their care for 6-8 hours a day, parents have custody-which means the kids live in their parents' home, are subject to their parents legal authority, and require their parents' consent to participate in school activities. Unless, of course, the kid is over 18.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hubie

Yeah, your ilk just loves kids in state custody. Sorry, but kids don't give up their constitutional rights when they step onto school property. The fact that you chose to compare schools to prisons proves that you do not grasp that simple fact.

---

Which constitutional right do you think is being violated and how is that being done (specifically please)?

Unless I missed something, these ID cards enable the school to know where a given student is at any given time during the school day. Isn't the school supposed to know where the kid is during the school day?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noonwitch

There are thousands of children out there who compare schools to prisons, although probably more deliberately than Nova did.

I think Nova's point is one of the school being responsible for the kids while they are on school property, and compared it to the way the state is responsible for prisoners in their custody. Where he is wrong is that a school does not have custody of the children in their care for 6-8 hours a day, parents have custody-which means the kids live in their parents' home, are subject to their parents legal authority, and require their parents' consent to participate in school activities. Unless, of course, the kid is over 18.

---

in loco parentis

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...+loco+parentis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linda22003

I'm hardly a "mark of the beast" type as mentioned in the article, but this is too Big Brother for me.

---

Yup. The argument about school liability for the presence of kids on school property is but a smokescreen for more control by, in this case, school authorities.

"Big Brother" goes by many names - the government, a school, any organization with a measure of power and influence over people associated with it.

For schools to insist on having that kind of control, well, to me it just doesn't pass the smell test.

Unless, of course, someone can post a legal precedent that it's now a punishable offense for a school to fail to cite the exact presence of 100% of its students during the school day - or even, for that matter, as long as the students are on school property. I wasn't able to find such a precedent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eupher

Yup. The argument about school liability for the presence of kids on school property is but a smokescreen for more control by, in this case, school authorities.

"Big Brother" goes by many names - the government, a school, any organization with a measure of power and influence over people associated with it.

For schools to insist on having that kind of control, well, to me it just doesn't pass the smell test.

Unless, of course, someone can post a legal precedent that it's now a punishable offense for a school to fail to cite the exact presence of 100% of its students during the school day - or even, for that matter, as long as the students are on school property. I wasn't able to find such a precedent.

---

They aren't implanting the chip under the skin, they are requiring students to carry an ID card. As much as it makes me feel like property, I have to wear an ID now and then, don't you?

I think it would be fun if a bunch of kids got together and collectively flushed their ID chips down the school toilets at the same time. Even the ones in the locker rooms. Hilarity would ensue.