This is not the way. Subjecting workers of any profession to this kind of tyrannical surveillance is a violation of human rights and dignity. There are good patriotic teachers out there that do not deserve this treatment.
We need to rebuild our society on a foundation of trust and integrity, not big brother spying on everyone.
There are good patriotic police who strap a camera to their lapel every day too. It saves their ass more than it hurts them. You ever drive with a dashcam? Makes you a betfer driver, and when someone hits you, its all on camera.
We are talking about our nations most precious resource and our future. There are things your kids teacher can do that are worse than what the police could do to them, and Id rather have my kids in police custody than a teachers unless they are on camera. Sorry to the few who feel a level of distrust is not warranted for their misdeeds. The reality is that one bad egg will spoil the bunch
So how about the gas station attendant who is on camera all day? The cashier at the store, or the teller at the bank? Should tgey feel such righteous indignation that their privacy has been taken away or should they feel that because there is a camera their boss doesnt trust them? Draw whatever conclusions you want, statistically there is a pretty high probability that you work on camera all day anyway. Any video of a crime is considered evidence, fren. In this day and age, if you arent worried about sending your kid to a liberal indoctrination center, you must not have kids. And no matter what you believe a camera with a live feed parents can access would stop that shit right quick
Yea. I went through thru the same thing with my kids. Someone stole an expensive item out of their backpack. When we asked for the security cameras- were told they were not for our consumption. Think they would have said that if it was one child accosting another?
Did that question just make you wonder to yourself “depends on the color”? Well, that’s how 24/7 recorded life will be. It will groupthink activated only for certain favored groups and desires public social positions, and NEVER for the everyday person.
So we should take cameras out of banks and stores too so people can have their privacy and not be "subjected to tyrannical surveillance" and feel like they have been violated. It is FAR more likely that you work in a place that has a camera on you at all times than not. Children are more important than money. Its also far more likely that a teacher might try to indoctrinate your child than rob a bank, but we dont point the cameras away when a teacher walks into a bank. You can expect to be on camera at least 50% of the time after you walk out your front door if you live in a metro area, and maybe more when you are in your house.
Camera - maybe not outside,but available to be run could happen.But it would be clear intrusion into privacy. Sound - maybe,but only available to parents - easy to do using encryption,only parents shall have the key to decode.But it looks too complicated I guess. Too risky. Too near marxist chinese surveillance.
I simply tried to describe what to do to only make dangers minimal (even if anons would ignore thing it is not moral and not wise to follow this direction).You can see it bellow. So many complications,so many risks.Those idea is not even worth it.
I am not for surveillance however .It looks indeed rather like too much surveillance. However the thing is surveillance already is in some American schools (especially because of fight with drugs) It shall be removed too or not ? Hard to say I guess...
Encryption keys can be shared. Streams can be mirrored. Data is never secure. Just ask Hollywood. They can never take down all of the pirated video content that is out there.
This technology is abusable. It will put students and teachers alike in great danger of doxing and harassment, and subject them to unwarranted and unreasonable risk. Nobody should be subjected to such working conditions. School is not meant to be televised.
You are right.I think you are obviously right. However to prove this I had to play devil's advocate. Simply.
Data is never secure
Data is only "secure" against certain dangers it is secured against - not higher ones. So you are right in general sense as "absolutely secure" is in practice impossible. Every sysadmin (if would be honest) would say that.
What I had proven there - all we could do with this model is improving security level and thus decreasing availability of stealing data. But you gave good example with hollywood. It means costs,and complicating life.
In absolute check - never. All we can do with surveillance is making effort to lower its impact and dangers it causes. And it has costs.
It is like with law. You cannot eliminate gun violence by forbidding guns. Sometimes that would lower gun supply for criminals (not in USA,too many guns) - but that's all. And with guns cost of lowering it supply to criminals would be taking all guns from law abiding citizens,what clearly makes this deal not worth it.
(except for Demoncratp tyrants loving criminals)
Simply similar way - surveillance is usually not worth it. So when I wrote "keeping surveillance in check" as well I could wrote - keeping surveillance minimal.
How are you proposing this will work? Are you suggesting that every classroom also have a full-time camera operator? Should the teacher be forced to only stand in one place? What happens when the teacher needs to be near a student?
Just keep the camera on the teacher.
Guilty until proven innocent?
This is not the way. Subjecting workers of any profession to this kind of tyrannical surveillance is a violation of human rights and dignity. There are good patriotic teachers out there that do not deserve this treatment.
We need to rebuild our society on a foundation of trust and integrity, not big brother spying on everyone.
There are good patriotic police who strap a camera to their lapel every day too. It saves their ass more than it hurts them. You ever drive with a dashcam? Makes you a betfer driver, and when someone hits you, its all on camera. We are talking about our nations most precious resource and our future. There are things your kids teacher can do that are worse than what the police could do to them, and Id rather have my kids in police custody than a teachers unless they are on camera. Sorry to the few who feel a level of distrust is not warranted for their misdeeds. The reality is that one bad egg will spoil the bunch
Police are doing things that are life or death and those videos are evidence
School is not even remotely similar.
If you're going to send your kid somewhere every day where you're worried about what's going to happen to them the solution isn't to film it.
So how about the gas station attendant who is on camera all day? The cashier at the store, or the teller at the bank? Should tgey feel such righteous indignation that their privacy has been taken away or should they feel that because there is a camera their boss doesnt trust them? Draw whatever conclusions you want, statistically there is a pretty high probability that you work on camera all day anyway. Any video of a crime is considered evidence, fren. In this day and age, if you arent worried about sending your kid to a liberal indoctrination center, you must not have kids. And no matter what you believe a camera with a live feed parents can access would stop that shit right quick
Yeah? like what else are going to do with that liberal arts degree that affords them summers off?
I drive a school bus and there are 5 cameras on each bus. They have every angle covered
Yea. I went through thru the same thing with my kids. Someone stole an expensive item out of their backpack. When we asked for the security cameras- were told they were not for our consumption. Think they would have said that if it was one child accosting another?
Did that question just make you wonder to yourself “depends on the color”? Well, that’s how 24/7 recorded life will be. It will groupthink activated only for certain favored groups and desires public social positions, and NEVER for the everyday person.
If you think they are doing that for the safety of the students I have a bridge to sell you.
It's a liability issue for the school district.
No it's also for the driver. I don't want to be accused of anything. It happens.
Unfortunately it takes actual video to get a bad teacher fired. They don't just leave on there own when someone announces no more bad teachers.
So we should take cameras out of banks and stores too so people can have their privacy and not be "subjected to tyrannical surveillance" and feel like they have been violated. It is FAR more likely that you work in a place that has a camera on you at all times than not. Children are more important than money. Its also far more likely that a teacher might try to indoctrinate your child than rob a bank, but we dont point the cameras away when a teacher walks into a bank. You can expect to be on camera at least 50% of the time after you walk out your front door if you live in a metro area, and maybe more when you are in your house.
Who’s in charge of reviewing and releasing the videos? Same thing as who counts the votes? Be careful of the nightmare you wish for
Every class has a live camera accessible to parents of children in that class with a password. Its pretty simple.
If children are so important don't send them to places alone you think they'll get hurt.
Body cams on police are a good thing. So is cameras public school teachers.
There are cameras at daycares and dog kennels. We should be able to see what’s going on with our children.
Camera - maybe not outside,but available to be run could happen.But it would be clear intrusion into privacy. Sound - maybe,but only available to parents - easy to do using encryption,only parents shall have the key to decode.But it looks too complicated I guess. Too risky. Too near marxist chinese surveillance.
I simply tried to describe what to do to only make dangers minimal (even if anons would ignore thing it is not moral and not wise to follow this direction).You can see it bellow. So many complications,so many risks.Those idea is not even worth it.
I am not for surveillance however .It looks indeed rather like too much surveillance. However the thing is surveillance already is in some American schools (especially because of fight with drugs) It shall be removed too or not ? Hard to say I guess...
For sure surveillance shall be kept in check.
Encryption keys can be shared. Streams can be mirrored. Data is never secure. Just ask Hollywood. They can never take down all of the pirated video content that is out there.
This technology is abusable. It will put students and teachers alike in great danger of doxing and harassment, and subject them to unwarranted and unreasonable risk. Nobody should be subjected to such working conditions. School is not meant to be televised.
You are right.I think you are obviously right. However to prove this I had to play devil's advocate. Simply.
Data is only "secure" against certain dangers it is secured against - not higher ones. So you are right in general sense as "absolutely secure" is in practice impossible. Every sysadmin (if would be honest) would say that.
What I had proven there - all we could do with this model is improving security level and thus decreasing availability of stealing data. But you gave good example with hollywood. It means costs,and complicating life.
Surveillance kept in check? When in history has that EVER happened?
In absolute check - never. All we can do with surveillance is making effort to lower its impact and dangers it causes. And it has costs.
It is like with law. You cannot eliminate gun violence by forbidding guns. Sometimes that would lower gun supply for criminals (not in USA,too many guns) - but that's all. And with guns cost of lowering it supply to criminals would be taking all guns from law abiding citizens,what clearly makes this deal not worth it. (except for Demoncratp tyrants loving criminals)
Simply similar way - surveillance is usually not worth it. So when I wrote "keeping surveillance in check" as well I could wrote - keeping surveillance minimal.
How are you proposing this will work? Are you suggesting that every classroom also have a full-time camera operator? Should the teacher be forced to only stand in one place? What happens when the teacher needs to be near a student?