I can't imagine being a kid in this type of environment. Then again, many of the kids who will be unwillingly subjected to this probably aren't informed enough to understand the potential long-term consequences of pervasive surveillance, which makes it all the more evil.
It's appalling that they spent $1.4 million (so far) on this rather than putting the money towards more useful things like teacher salaries or after-school programs. Maybe if they improved the overall school experience they wouldn't need to monitor the kids like prisoners?
To me this looks like an openly hostile act.
[1] Fine, almost all, there will be exceptions, but the goals of the education system should include making exceptions as rare as possible. At the very least I'll claim a belief that achieving a low enough rate of exceptions so as to make them negligible in practice.
At least, I sure hope they will.
Somehow I haven’t seen anyone actually be negatively affected by this supposed record.
Nowadays it will.
We already have legal precedent for paying reparations for undisclosed tests against civilians.
The backstory of how this came about would surely be interesting.
Nothing like a refreshing beverage and discussing pervasive surveillance technology for the youth of America.
The time has come to teach your chilluns the virtues of laser pointers, spray paint, and civil disobedience.
It won't take long, I guarantee you.
New York's MO is "screw over people now and settle out of court in 10yr if you think the precedent isn't gonna go your way."
A lawsuit or twenty won't stop them. It's not their money.
Has this been decided in jurisprudence?
I can assure you, the teams of PhDs from Stanford and MIT will address those cases. Just like how Google knows if you're clicking random ads.
[0] https://cyber.harvard.edu/cybersecurity/Why_Information_Secu...
"What bothers me is not that the kids are kept in prisons, but that (a) they aren't told about it, and (b) the prisons are run mostly by the inmates."
In many ways K-12 schools are run like prisons, with administrators playing god and throwing fits when challenged about their petty actions, students trapped in an environment not of their choosing, and society enforcing this structure.
I wish there were more diverse options for schooling, as I would've been much more interested in K-12 school had I been encouraged to dive into a subject, then asked to prove my knowledge, without the distraction of other subjects splitting my focus. College definitely offers much more flexibility in this regard, which has made for a much better experience.
It's only gotten worse since then. We didn't even have cameras in the hallways when I was in high school.
My kids (when I have them) will not be going to a public school with cameras in the hallways. They deserve the opportunity to be kids and not be hassled for it.
* People are placed there involuntarily.
* Their freedom of movement is confined to the prison at all times (sometimes people serve prison on weekends, so I guess that's an edge case).
* They are put there because they are criminals (or political prisoners, in the case of corrupt countries).
* They are intended as either punitive measure or because we decide society is not safe if certain people are allowed outside of prison.
Schools do not exhibit any of these characteristics. Attendance is not mandatory, as parents can homeschool their children or take them to private schools. They don't live there, they usually only attend from morning to afternoon during weekdays. The purpose is not punitive, it's educational.
Look at the quote in context. This is where prisons are first mentioned:
> Why is the real world more hospitable to nerds? It might seem that the answer is simply that it's populated by adults, who are too mature to pick on one another. But I don't think this is true. Adults in prison certainly pick on one another. And so, apparently, do society wives; in some parts of Manhattan, life for women sounds like a continuation of high school, with all the same petty intrigues.
> I think the important thing about the real world is not that it's populated by adults, but that it's very large, and the things you do have real effects. That's what school, prison, and ladies-who-lunch all lack. The inhabitants of all those worlds are trapped in little bubbles where nothing they do can have more than a local effect. Naturally these societies degenerate into savagery. They have no function for their form to follow.
(skip one paragraph)
> The other thing that's different about the real world is that it's much larger. In a large enough pool, even the smallest minorities can achieve a critical mass if they clump together. Out in the real world, nerds collect in certain places and form their own societies where intelligence is the most important thing. Sometimes the current even starts to flow in the other direction: sometimes, particularly in university math and science departments, nerds deliberately exaggerate their awkwardness in order to seem smarter. John Nash so admired Norbert Wiener that he adopted his habit of touching the wall as he walked down a corridor.
He puts schools, prison, and high-society wives in the same bucket because they are both communities where the members of the community did not choose to be a part of that community and there is very little constructive way to increase social status. The result is that changes in status is mostly destructive: one improves one's standing by pushing others down. It's not that "schools are used as prisons".
This isn't a metaphor. Schools exhibit all of those characteristics. By your own definitions:
* People are placed there involuntarily.
Private and homeschooling is an edge case, but a red herring at that: it's nearly never the kid's choice as to which school they will go to, and (in some jurisdictions) they'll be hunted down and forcefully returned if they skip, in exceptional cases by men with guns. That's what "placed there involuntarily" means.
* Their freedom of movement is confined to the prison at all times (sometimes people serve prison on weekends, so I guess that's an edge case).
School rules generally prohibit leaving and punish violations with further confinement to the school if this rule is violated. High schools are slightly more relaxed about this but attendance is still enforced, in the more extreme cases by sending a man with a gun to apprehend you and return you to school. Again, exactly like a prison; the only reason students aren't locked in is because doing that would break fire codes.
* They are put there because they are criminals (or political prisoners, in the case of corrupt countries).
They are put there because, exactly like criminals and political prisoners, Society has decided that until a certain age they are not people and we can (mis)treat them however we wish. This isn't to make a judgment of whether or not this view is correct; but if you define "person" as a being that has the capacity to question and protest its station in life there are many "persons" held without cause in that underclass.
* They are intended as either punitive measure or because we decide society is not safe if certain people are allowed outside of prison.
We decided that the subsection of society that students comprise are not safe if they are allowed outside of school (and to the point that a lack of public schooling would affect literacy rates and the ability to participate in civil society, we're right).
Identical justifications are used to imprison political prisoners. "The purpose is not punitive, it's educational." is how their imprisonment and treatment are typically justified, too.
45% of students in California are poor or slightly above poor: https://www.ppic.org/publication/child-poverty-in-california...