If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   California school district hires firm to monitor middle & high school students' social media posts   (cnn.com) divider line 78
    More: Scary, California, high schools, school districts, Chris Frydrych, Hermosa Beach, Studebaker, truancy, consumer rights  
•       •       •

4244 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Sep 2013 at 12:54 PM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



78 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-14 07:12:22 AM
Not sure how I feel on this one.

On the one hand, it's about time *someone* gives enough of a damn about these kids to wonder  whatthey are up to.

On the other hand, what students (and teachers for that matter) do and say away from school should  be their own business.

Any constitutional law buffs out there want to weigh in? Isn't this an invasion of privacy? Or do they get a pass because the
posts are already public?

Why aren't the parents keeping tabs on what their kids are doing / saying online? You know, PARENTING????
 
2013-09-14 07:40:04 AM
This is something you can get paid to do? Because it's kinda brilliant...

Oh, and Orwell something something fear terrible privacy unfair.
 
2013-09-14 11:41:03 AM

digitalrain: Any constitutional law buffs out there want to weigh in? Isn't this an invasion of privacy? Or do they get a pass because the
posts are already public?


Probably the latter; I think the school monitoring out-of-school communications by students or punishing them for actions that occur off school grounds and outside school time is really dodgy, but I don't think there's any constitutional problems because (as you say) it's all public anyway.
 
2013-09-14 11:46:24 AM

Barfmaker: This is something you can get paid to do? Because it's kinda brilliant...

Oh, and Orwell something something fear terrible privacy unfair.


I think that sounds like a horrible job. I would only last a week, tops.
 
2013-09-14 11:47:11 AM
Since they're under 18 and the monitoring is being done at the school's behest, I'm not sure that their Constitutional rights exist yet. The parents, though, may have a complaint since this is also an intrusion into THEIR rights. If my kid's under 18 and you're monitoring him, you're actually monitoring me.
 
2013-09-14 11:54:40 AM

digitalrain: Any constitutional law buffs out there want to weigh in? Isn't this an invasion of privacy? Or do they get a pass because the
posts are already public?


If it's open and accessible to the public, then it's open season for them to read it. Now if you set your privacy to not show anything, I don't believe they can force you to show your page or accept a friend request from the Facebook Hall Monitors.
 
2013-09-14 11:55:15 AM

olddeegee: Since they're under 18 and the monitoring is being done at the school's behest, I'm not sure that their Constitutional rights exist yet. The parents, though, may have a complaint since this is also an intrusion into THEIR rights. If my kid's under 18 and you're monitoring him, you're actually monitoring me.


You do not have to be 18 to have Constitutional rights, and the Supreme Court has ruled your Constitutional rights don't stop at the school door.
Teacher, leave them kids alone.
 
2013-09-14 11:55:47 AM

Peepeye: Barfmaker: This is something you can get paid to do? Because it's kinda brilliant...

Oh, and Orwell something something fear terrible privacy unfair.

I think that sounds like a horrible job. I would only last a week, tops.


After the 100th tweet about Justin Bieber or One Direction, I'd probably be looking for a window to jump out of.
 
2013-09-14 11:56:33 AM
In another recent incident, a student posted a photo of what appeared to be a gun, and a subsequent inquiry determined the gun was fake, Sheehan said.
 Still, school administrators spoke with the parents of the student, who wasn't disciplined, the superintendent said.
"We had to educate the student on the dangers" of posting such photos, Sheehan said. "He was a good kid. ... It had a good ending."


That's right. You heard right. Tax dollars in this school district are being spent to educate youngsters on the dangers of posting pictures of fake guns on Facebook.

Those dangers, of course, being that they may end up having to deal with hysterical adults who think that pictures of fake guns are somehow dangerous.

Well, to be fair, I don't really know. Maybe they are. Maybe they could put someone's eye out. I mean, this recent incident had "a good ending," but the next one... who knows what could happen?
 
2013-09-14 12:57:15 PM

Secret Agent X23: In another recent incident, a student posted a photo of what appeared to be a gun, and a subsequent inquiry determined the gun was fake, Sheehan said.
 Still, school administrators spoke with the parents of the student, who wasn't disciplined, the superintendent said.
"We had to educate the student on the dangers" of posting such photos, Sheehan said. "He was a good kid. ... It had a good ending."

That's right. You heard right. Tax dollars in this school district are being spent to educate youngsters on the dangers of posting pictures of fake guns on Facebook.

Those dangers, of course, being that they may end up having to deal with hysterical adults who think that pictures of fake guns are somehow dangerous.

Well, to be fair, I don't really know. Maybe they are. Maybe they could put someone's eye out. I mean, this recent incident had "a good ending," but the next one... who knows what could happen?


What happens when it is a real gun, but the pic was taken by their parent say at a range, where they were teaching their kid how to be responsible with it?
 
2013-09-14 01:04:35 PM
ladyfortuna:

What happens when it is a real gun, but the pic was taken by their parent say at a range, where they were teaching their kid how to be responsible with it?

That is a completely different scenario, but still one open to mass hysteria from other parents etc. Not everyone sees firearms the same way and some amongst us just enjoy being upset.
I'd question why anyone needs to post that picture to social media in the first place. What happened to just doing things without having to share photos of it with all and sundry?
I value my privacy and anonymity more than some, I realise that, but life is not a photo opportunity and I welcome a future when people realize that.
 
2013-09-14 01:06:41 PM

ladyfortuna: Secret Agent X23: In another recent incident, a student posted a photo of what appeared to be a gun, and a subsequent inquiry determined the gun was fake, Sheehan said.
 Still, school administrators spoke with the parents of the student, who wasn't disciplined, the superintendent said.
"We had to educate the student on the dangers" of posting such photos, Sheehan said. "He was a good kid. ... It had a good ending."

That's right. You heard right. Tax dollars in this school district are being spent to educate youngsters on the dangers of posting pictures of fake guns on Facebook.

Those dangers, of course, being that they may end up having to deal with hysterical adults who think that pictures of fake guns are somehow dangerous.

Well, to be fair, I don't really know. Maybe they are. Maybe they could put someone's eye out. I mean, this recent incident had "a good ending," but the next one... who knows what could happen?

What happens when it is a real gun, but the pic was taken by their parent say at a range, where they were teaching their kid how to be responsible with it?


Parent? I think you spelled "School District Employees" wrong.
 
2013-09-14 01:09:09 PM
It's a nice way to to find out which male students have slept with that hot English teacher.
 
2013-09-14 01:09:22 PM
Isn't the NSA already doing this?

It's probably the same company double billing for the work.
 
2013-09-14 01:10:03 PM
As much as I don't agree with it, it doesn't really violate anything. I hate to say it, but it's not really invading privacy when the posts are out there for the whole world to see. Punishment done by the school district for things posted that have nothing to do with school would be a different story though.
 
2013-09-14 01:15:06 PM

lousyskater: As much as I don't agree with it, it doesn't really violate anything. I hate to say it, but it's not really invading privacy when the posts are out there for the whole world to see. Punishment done by the school district for things posted that have nothing to do with school would be a different story though.


i would have to agree. Ten years ago, my oldest got in trouble in an American school in Korea, when he "joined" a xanga "blogring" that was vaguely threatening to a teacher. He did it from home, and the school caught him after catching the kid who made the "blogring" -- yet never informed us parents what happened. At least I got to yell at a Principal in his office, with his door wide open.
 
2013-09-14 01:21:57 PM
wtf is wrong with our country???
 
2013-09-14 01:22:24 PM

qorkfiend: digitalrain: Any constitutional law buffs out there want to weigh in? Isn't this an invasion of privacy? Or do they get a pass because the
posts are already public?

Probably the latter; I think the school monitoring out-of-school communications by students or punishing them for actions that occur off school grounds and outside school time is really dodgy, but I don't think there's any constitutional problems because (as you say) it's all public anyway.


In Facebook you can control who sees your posts, so unless you set your profile to "Public" you do have somewhat of an expectation that what you post will be limited to those you choose, and not open to the public.

It doesn't matter though; your kids belong to the state anyway.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3qtpdSQox0
 
2013-09-14 01:24:35 PM

Walker: olddeegee: Since they're under 18 and the monitoring is being done at the school's behest, I'm not sure that their Constitutional rights exist yet. The parents, though, may have a complaint since this is also an intrusion into THEIR rights. If my kid's under 18 and you're monitoring him, you're actually monitoring me.

You do not have to be 18 to have Constitutional rights, and the Supreme Court has ruled your Constitutional rights don't stop at the school door.
Teacher, leave them kids alone.


Granted, but there are legal limitations to those rights. A state can take custody of an 18 year old for many reasons that a legal adult couldn't be held for. I think the whole "Big Brother"ness of it all sucks, but it's a gray area Constitutionally when the school could stress that they had their own safety and security in mind.
 
2013-09-14 01:25:40 PM
now all the bad kids will just make facebook pages with fake names.  what a colossal waste of money on something so pointless and counterproductive.  when the principal gets to deal with phone calls and meetings fifty times a day because some kid posted about how he hates his teacher, they'll realize that you can't police people's private lives and private comments, even if they are made in a public forum.  once every kid in the entire school gets in trouble for posting something vaguely violent or threatening, they'll learn what a waste of time it is trying to patrol their lives like this.  it won't solve anything and it will only piss off and antagonize the students, the parents, and the teachers as well.
 
2013-09-14 01:28:00 PM
It's a very subtle way of getting all the English teachers fired
 
2013-09-14 01:28:59 PM
Welcome to the new order!  Have a nice day.
 
2013-09-14 01:34:42 PM
As to the constitutionality, well, I've been saying it since the NSA b/s broke: you have no "right to privacy" to stuff you didn't attempt to keep private to begin with.

For the rest, I don't know what the school thinks they can do with the "intel" they get, since I predict a sudden increase in fake school threats just for teh lulz.
 
2013-09-14 01:34:43 PM
How much does this firm pay and are they hiring? I could use an easy job that sounds like it would be filled with plenty of lulz.
 
2013-09-14 01:39:38 PM

digitalrain: Not sure how I feel on this one.

On the one hand, it's about time *someone* gives enough of a damn about these kids to wonder  whatthey are up to.

On the other hand, what students (and teachers for that matter) do and say away from school should  be their own business.

Any constitutional law buffs out there want to weigh in? Isn't this an invasion of privacy? Or do they get a pass because the
posts are already public?

Why aren't the parents keeping tabs on what their kids are doing / saying online? You know, PARENTING????


Ahh but if you are under 18 you have no rights.
 
2013-09-14 01:41:04 PM
I see it with a grain of positive value. If it stops a kid from ending it all, or stops a messed up kid from blowing away his school, then it is a good thing.   That is undeniable.  I don't quite understand the need to document your *every* activity and feeling in a public forum, but if you do it is fair game for everyone and anyone.  TFA doesn't say if they're forcing kids to turn over their account info, or if they're ONLY using keywords, etc to determine if they are part of the school system.  I imagine they have *special* tools, or are at least working on that. All the services are rolling over and providing user data - for profit I might add.  I would hope the agency would have adequate screening processes to weed out pedophiles and drug dealers that would view the user base as a fresh supply of victims, customers or mules.  And as for why aren't parents monitoring their own kids... Teachers as babysitters was an issue long before social media.  Getting parents to parent is definitely a problem, but social media didn't cause the problem, and likely isn't going to be a factor in fixing it, since mom and dad are just as addicted to social media as the kids are.   There should definitely be a rule/law that those monitors are not to communicate directly with those kids under any circumstances whatsoever.
 
2013-09-14 01:41:07 PM
Why aren't they giving the parent the option to opt in for their child instead of all children all the time? Honestly it'll be much easier to get it approved if they kill the privacy slowly. Ask Cheney.
 
2013-09-14 01:43:28 PM
If you set your facebook posts, photos and everything else  to "friends only" which it should be anyway, the entire thing is moot.  Also, if you're posting personal information on twitter, you're a dumbass.

Whatever you're broadcasting to the world is fair game.

-M
 
2013-09-14 01:44:42 PM

ladyfortuna: Secret Agent X23: In another recent incident, a student posted a photo of what appeared to be a gun, and a subsequent inquiry determined the gun was fake, Sheehan said.
 Still, school administrators spoke with the parents of the student, who wasn't disciplined, the superintendent said.
"We had to educate the student on the dangers" of posting such photos, Sheehan said. "He was a good kid. ... It had a good ending."

That's right. You heard right. Tax dollars in this school district are being spent to educate youngsters on the dangers of posting pictures of fake guns on Facebook.

Those dangers, of course, being that they may end up having to deal with hysterical adults who think that pictures of fake guns are somehow dangerous.

Well, to be fair, I don't really know. Maybe they are. Maybe they could put someone's eye out. I mean, this recent incident had "a good ending," but the next one... who knows what could happen?

What happens when it is a real gun, but the pic was taken by their parent say at a range, where they were teaching their kid how to be responsible with it?


So what if it's a real gun? Can kids not pose with the deer they just bagged? Can kids not pose for father, son pictures at the gun range?

I'm saying there's a difference in the intention of the picture. Of course, if they are posing with a pistol and posting shiat like "gladys and I are going to give those bullies what for"; then everybody can freak.
 
2013-09-14 01:50:13 PM
How I feel about this comes down to three things.
1)What happens when your profile is private?

2) To what degree are they storing this information, and for how long?

3) Are the administrators going to use it to harass kids that are not breaking any school rules at school?
 
2013-09-14 01:56:41 PM
I stumbled onto the profile of an inner city youth on facebook and it was all txt speak. There's room for misinterpretation and deniability is language that poorly transmitted.
 
2013-09-14 02:00:22 PM
my oldest just got his own facebook  account.  Everything he post has to be ok by ether me or his mother(depending on who's house hes at when he dose the post).  So if he was to post something saying some teacher was a jerk or mean.  He have to run it by us and we would have to agree with it.  If the school wanted to punish him for it they better be ready for a legal fight.  Same thing if any of my kids schools send home paperwork saying that if a student has a facebook account that we have to give the school access to change stuff that they don't like.  I will look at them and say ok where the law/court order saying I have to turn that info over.  Then they will be informed that if they try to punish any of my kids then the next time me and them talk bout it will be in front of a judge.
 
2013-09-14 02:02:24 PM
There's a bunch of reasons why my children aren't allowed to have any access to social media, and shiat like this is one of them.
 
2013-09-14 02:04:10 PM
If a kid goes hunting with his family and takes a picture of himself and his dad, both are holding guns and maybe posing next to some delicious deer carcass, can they post that picture?

Now I want venison jerky.
 
2013-09-14 02:13:31 PM
Although I don't agree with this, I don't think it is illegal. So kids should learn to adjust their privacy settings.

And I don't think it is the school's job to do this. That is just another extension of the government stepping in where parental responsibility ought to be. Although it is sad that some parent's don't care enough to deal with their children, the rest of us don't need some big brother style babysitter looking over our shoulder to say, "hey did you know your kid said this?"
 
2013-09-14 02:50:34 PM

digitalrain: Not sure how I feel on this one.

On the one hand, it's about time *someone* gives enough of a damn about these kids to wonder  whatthey are up to.

On the other hand, what students (and teachers for that matter) do and say away from school should  be their own business.

Any constitutional law buffs out there want to weigh in? Isn't this an invasion of privacy? Or do they get a pass because the
posts are already public?

Why aren't the parents keeping tabs on what their kids are doing / saying online? You know, PARENTING????


People under the age of 18 (who are still at school) should be banned from the internet - the education departments should be running robbust intranets that are knowinly monitored by the deparments and no outsider can venture into legally (or something similar.)  No chance of predators going unnoticed, no bullying under assumed names, no real need for police intervention at all because the schools should be able to monitor and deal with most problems.  Never understood how schools give kids access to the world wide web (esp. when filters etc are ever so easy to get around.)  When they leave school they can enter the big wide world.

It would also stop the majority of gamers from having to deal with kids whilst playing games online.
 
2013-09-14 02:51:31 PM

megarian: If a kid goes hunting with his family and takes a picture of himself and his dad, both are holding guns and maybe posing next to some delicious deer carcass, can they post that picture?


--- NO WAY! California is so chock full of Namby-Pambies who will shut that kid down.
Solution: Fake name accounts on social media, or have the kid DROP social media just to stick it to them.
 
2013-09-14 02:53:57 PM

puddleonfire: megarian: If a kid goes hunting with his family and takes a picture of himself and his dad, both are holding guns and maybe posing next to some delicious deer carcass, can they post that picture?

--- NO WAY! California is so chock full of Namby-Pambies who will shut that kid down.
Solution: Fake name accounts on social media, or have the kid DROP social media just to stick it to them.


Okay.

That still leaves the venison jerky problem.
 
2013-09-14 02:58:22 PM

wildcardjack: I stumbled onto the profile of an inner city youth on facebook and it was all txt speak. There's room for misinterpretation and deniability is language that poorly transmitted.


you don't say.
 
2013-09-14 03:08:46 PM
I understand that the kid in question had regular fantasies about using a gun to kill multiple people while his family groveled on the floor.

images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-09-14 03:17:01 PM
How the fark do they get their IDs?!  There's no farkin' way that I would allow my daughter's school to have this info.  They are doing a fine job of being incompetent within the confines of the building.  They don't need to expand.
 
2013-09-14 03:22:26 PM

Kahabut: How I feel about this comes down to three things.
1)What happens when your profile is private?

2) To what degree are they storing this information, and for how long?

3) Are the administrators going to use it to harass kids that are not breaking any school rules at school?


I've always thought it would be a great and evil enterprise to download and store people's social media (Facebook, YouTube, twitter - whatever's public) and then hold on to it until those people become professionals and sell it to companies who want to vett those professionals or to the individuals themselves to be done with what they wish. Would also work great for political candidates.
 
2013-09-14 03:27:18 PM

freedumb: Kahabut: How I feel about this comes down to three things.
1)What happens when your profile is private?

2) To what degree are they storing this information, and for how long?

3) Are the administrators going to use it to harass kids that are not breaking any school rules at school?

I've always thought it would be a great and evil enterprise to download and store people's social media (Facebook, YouTube, twitter - whatever's public) and then hold on to it until those people become professionals and sell it to companies who want to vett those professionals or to the individuals themselves to be done with what they wish. Would also work great for political candidates.


You and me need to talk.  I've got some spare server hardware, know anyone that codes well?
 
2013-09-14 03:39:51 PM
What the fark is with the farktards in this thread talking about school kids having no Constitutional Rights yet?

You are born with those Rights, you pinheads.

School can't punish you for outside of school incidences. How about your boss punishing you for speeding, while you are on vacation in bumfark Arkansas

/Now excuse me while I go stalk some cute biatch on twitter... Oooo lala.
 
2013-09-14 03:43:49 PM

digitalrain: Any constitutional law buffs out there want to weigh in? Isn't this an invasion of privacy? Or do they get a pass because the
posts are already public?


If they just monitor what kids put out in public, it's a non issue. Just change your privacy settings.

If they monitor everything nsa style, even posts protected by privacy settings, it's a no-no.
 
2013-09-14 03:45:13 PM

StainedGlassRuby: I see it with a grain of positive value. If it stops a kid from ending it all, or stops a messed up kid from blowing away his school, then it is a good thing.   That is undeniable.


One of the things that bugged me about the aftermath of Sandy Hook is the way the gun-control lobby immediately mobilized to such an extent they drowned out any opportunity for a national debate about any other approach to preventing these tragedies.

It could have resulted in a productive conversation about how parents and schools can be on alert for the signs of any mental health issues their kids might have, such as whether schemes like this are appropriate. Instead it seemed like the anti-gun lobby just saw another chance to push on with their own crusade, to which the pro-gun lobby responded in kind, therein removing any potential for constructive debate and actual improvements.
 
2013-09-14 03:52:51 PM
Maybe they are actually looking for their predatory teachers.
 
2013-09-14 03:56:53 PM

The Numbers: Instead it seemed like the anti-gun lobby just saw another chance to push on with their own crusade, to which the pro-gun lobby responded in kind, therein removing any potential for constructive debate and actual improvements.


Why is it always assumed that 'improvements' means that we need to deal away more liberty? Firearm owners give some ground, some criminal steals a gun and goes and kills people, and then we're right back at being asked to give more ground in the name of compromise and improving safety.

It's not a conversation unless the other side is willing to give up some of their ground.
 
2013-09-14 03:57:19 PM
"In another recent incident, a student posted a photo of what appeared to be a gun, and a subsequent inquiry determined the gun was fake, Sheehan said.
Still, school administrators spoke with the parents of the student, who wasn't disciplined, the superintendent said.
"We had to educate the student on the dangers" of posting such photos, Sheehan said."

Apparently I need to be educated as well. What are the "dangers" of posting pics of a fake gun? Or a real gun? I need to know soon, deer season is right around the corner. I don't want an "inquiry", let alone "discipline".
 
2013-09-14 04:07:12 PM

digitalrain: Any constitutional law buffs out there want to weigh in? Isn't this an invasion of privacy? Or do they get a pass because the
posts are already public?


If it's public, it's not an invasion of privacy.

Why aren't the parents keeping tabs on what their kids are doing / saying online? You know, PARENTING????

Good question, but some parents are idiots and some fail miserably.

This is also old news. I saw it somewhere a few weeks ago. Some school administrator claimed it had already helped students. Now whether he meant "helped" as in telling them not to post pictures of fake guns or whether they intervened in a potential suicide or school shooting is unclear.

It's also unclear how much is automated and how much is actually watched by actual people. It seems to me just identifying Facebook and Twitter accounts would be prone to error if automated. Are they sure "Jack Smith" is actually a student or just some 45 year old who lives in the same area?

Given the cost and number of students, you can bet that there isn't a whole team of people reading everything kids do online. I'm guessing they're looking for keywords (e.g. "depressed", "guns", "marijuana") and having someone actually look at what they said when certain words come up.

I'd also bet that it's a pretty depressing job to have and that it doesn't pay very well. I don't even like reading a bunch of people here on Fark and almost no one uses their real name anyway. Having to look at a post to determine whether a kid means he's going deer hunting with his father next weekend or if he's going to come to school with a gun can't possibly be that interesting unless you're actually writing the software to sort that out.

There's a huge difference between "Got a new gun for my birthday. Going hunting after school on Friday" and "I'm getting a gun on Friday and that asshole who bullies me at school better watch out."

The school can justify it because it's less than $3 a student and "if it just saves one life" it will be worth it.

I suspect that more than anything it will instill in kids the idea that they shouldn't post personal shiat on the internet or at least if they do they shouldn't attach their real name to it.

I never post online using my own name and when I do post I try to leave personal identifying information out. I may have let it slip what town I live in and what kind of car I drive and that I have a cat. It would be interesting to see what kind of dossier you could collect on me from my Fark postings. And just in case anyone is scraping that data for whatever reason I sometimes use disinformation.

(My car is silver in color, my cat is black with white patches, I sell crack on the corner every Saturday night, my neighbors are assholes, I voted for the guy who represents me in Congress.)

It's up to the information scrapers to figure out which of those statements is actually true and which is meant just to throw them off the scent of my real identity.
 
Displayed 50 of 78 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report